;ill)-S:: 


\J' 


trt 


\^ 


BS 


THE  K  TEXT  OF  JOSHUA 


i! 


I 


M.\X  L.  MARGOLIS 


I 


■^_  •- 


. 


Reprinted  for  private  circulation  from 

The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures 

Vol.  XXVIII.  No.  I,  October  igii 


GIFT   OF 


HTH^ 


>i»>33  I'l     9«      ati 


THE  AMERICAN  JOURNAL 

OF 

SEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND   LITERATURES 

(CONTINUING  HEBRAICA) 


Volume  XXVIII  OCTOBER,    1911  Number  1 


THE  K  TEXT  OF  JOSHUA 

By  Max  L.j/Margolis 
Dropsie  College 

1.  With  the  letter  K  is  designated  Codex  Tischendorfianus  II 
of  the  Leipzig  University  Library  which  the  famous  discoverer  of 
the  Sinaiticus  brought  home  from  his  first  oriental  trip  in  1844.  It 
consists  of  22  palimpsest  leaves  of  which  17  contain  in  uncial  script 
under  an  Arabic  text  biblical  fragments  from  Numbers,  Deuteronomy, 
Joshua,  and  Judges.  Not  only  were  some  of  the  leaves  in  a  bad 
condition,  but  the  margins  of  most  of  them  had  been  cut  off  or 
otherwise  mutilated  in  the  process  of  their  employment  as  bindings 
for  other  codices.  The  fragments  which  Tischendorf  assigned  to 
the  seventh  century  at  the  latest  were  published  by  him  in  the  first 
volume  of  his  Monmnenta  sacra  inedita,  nova  coUedio,  1855;  the 
leaves  containing  all  that  is  left  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  are  found 
on  pp.  161-70. 

2.  On  the  text  of  codex  K  Tischendorf  expresses  himself  as 
follows  (p.  xxxiii  of  his  Introduction):  "Ipse  vero  textus  horum 
fragmentorum  admodum  peculiaris  et  gravis  est,  a  Vaticano  quidem 
textu  satis  di versus  neque  magis  vero  simillimus  Alexandrino. 
Inprimis  discedit  a  Vaticana  editione  pariter  atque  ab  Alexandrino 

'    A/ 
452195 


,•...*,.•.•••      •• 

2  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

codice  per  libros  losuae  et  luclicum.  ubi  prae  ceteris  assentientes 
habet  Holmesii  cocUces  75.  54.  118.  44.  59.  74.  76.  84.  106.  134." 
He  then  gives  a  few  instances.  For  e/cfj.co6a  165a,  10.  he  adduces 
eKfiada  75  as  the  nearest  reading.  He  overlooked  eKfiaOa  54  in 
Parsons.  As  for  ixococrav  162a,  8,  which  he  mentions  as  a  singular 
readmg,  ficooaav  118  comes  pretty  close,  not  to  mention  /Socoaav 
75  ^(ocoo-av  54  which,  considering  the  well-kno^^l  graphic  similarit}' 
of  /3  and  /*  in  the  cursive  script,  are  not  so  remote  either. 

3.  As  I  am  preparing  for  pubhcation  an  edition  of  the  Greek 
Joshua  according  to  the  text  of  the  cursives  with  which  Tischen- 
dorf's  uncial  stands  in  affinity,  I  shall  reserve  for  the  preface  to 
that  edition  an  account  of  the  attention  which  these  manuscripts 
have  thus  far  received,  of  the  discovery  that  they  constitute  a 
group,  and  of  the  conjectures  concerning  the  recension  which  they 
represent.  I  shall  here  single  out  only  the  latest  contribution  by 
Ernst  Hautsch  (Der  Lukiantext  des  OJdateuch,  Berlin.  1910)  who 
recognizes  hi  the  group,  particularly  m  the  smaller  sub-group  (54. 
75),  none  other  than  the  Lucianic  recension.  But  whether  Lucian' 
or  not,  it  is  certainly  a  recension,  and  it  is  just  as  manifest  that 
it  is  not  Origen's. 

4.  So  far  as  the  Book  of  Joshua  goes,  59  st€ps  out  as  a  member 
of  the  group  in  question.  This  is  at  least  my  impression  from  the 
readings  given  by  Parsons.  The  case  is  different  in  the  Book  of 
Judges  (see  Moore's  Commentary,  Introduction).  On  the  other 
hand,  Cod.  Gr.  609  of  the  BibUotheque  Nationale  in  Paris  must  be 
included:  I  find  it  to  be  almost  a  twin-brother  of  44;  but  106 
with  which  they  are  both  related  excels  them. 

5.  A  still  further  witness  of  the  text  underhing  our  group  may 
be  found  in  the  Old  Latm  of  the  Codex  Lugdunensis.  According 
to  the  editor,  Ulysse  Robert  (Heptateuchi  partis  posterioris  versio 
latina  antiquissima,  Lyon,  1900),  its  nearest  relatives  are  74,  54, 
106,  134.  My  oa\ti  examination,  however,  goes  to  reveal  a  closer 
affinity  wdth  54.  75.  118.  To  mention  but  one  example,  the  peculiar 
reading  cKficoda  adverted  to  by  Tischendorf  (see  §  2)  recurs  in  the 
Latin  in  the  form  ecmoth  which,  by  the  way,  is  the  more  correct, 
the  final  a  being  an  error  of  dittography.  There  are  also  note- 
worthy deviations.      Thus  it  occasionally  reverts  in  a  pronounced 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  3 

manner  to  the  B  type  so  far  as  its  groundwork  is  ccnicerned,  and 
some  readings  it  shares  with  the  Sahidic  version  (ef.,  e.g.,  15:  27 
asergarri  with  aaepyapei).  The  points  of  contact  with  54.  75.  118 
are,  however,  sufficient  to  warrant  a  collation. 

6.  In  presenting  on  this  occasion  an  edition  of  K  ahead  of  my 
forthcoming  edition  of  the  entire  text  (see  §  3)  I  am  guided  b}'  the 
desire  to  take  my  bearings  for  the  latter.  The  collation  which 
accompanies  the  edition  of  the  fragments  makes  it  clear  that  of 
the  group  of  cursives  signalized  l)y  Tischendorf  it  is  the  smaller 
group  (54.  75.  118)  with  which  the  affinity  of  K  is  most  marked 
and  among  the  three  it  is  54  that  must  be  singled  out  in  particular. 
For  118  stands  somewhat  aside,  and  75  is  a  curtailed  text,  its  omis- 
sions being  not  always  due  to  errors,  but  obviously  to  a  desire  for 
condensation.  To  be  sure,  54  errs  on  the  side  of  amplification 
through  the  admission  of  matter  which  we  may  conjecture  stood 
on  the  margin  of  the  archetx-pe.  Just  how  far  54  may  be  followed 
is  revealed  by  a  comparison  ^dth  K.  It  is  furthermore  clear  that 
the  recensional  character  of  K.  54  is  obhterated  in  the  larger  group 
(74.  76.  etc.)  into  which  matter  from  the  cognate,  yet  distinct 
recension  by  Origen  has  been  achiiitted.  I  feel  therefore  that  I 
shall  be  justified  in  my  future  edition  to  make  54  the  basis  of  my 
text,  while  the  variants  from  the  other  ^^■itnesses  may  be  conven- 
iently placed  below  in  the  apparatus. 

7.  I  have  supplied  in  brackets  the  lacunae  of  K  which  Tischen- 
dorf, barring  exceptions  (1656,  1;  1696,  3,  4,  5  in  part,  6-10;  170a, 
10,  23),  has  refrained  from  doing.  As  the  reader  ^dll  see,  there  is 
room  for  grave  doubt  only  in  the  fewest  instances.  Below  the  text 
I  give  in  three  sets  of  Notes  the  variants  from  (1)  54.  75.  118.  Old 
Latin,  (2)  84.  134.  76.  74.  106.  Cod.  Gr.  Paris.  609.  44,  (3)  BA0G. 
55.  Lagarde's  Greek  text  (the  so-called  Lucian),  the  Syrohexaplaris 
in  Lagarde's  edition,  Dillmann's  Ethiopic  (codices  FH),  and  Ciasca's 
Sahidic.  For  the  uncials  I  have  used  the  phototypic  editions, 
while  for  the  cursives  I  possess  photographs  which  the  authorities 
of  Dropsie  College  have  kindly  secured  for  my  use.  My  informa- 
tion is  thus  based  on  first-hand  sources  throughout.  I  say  this, 
because  I  have  discovered  numerous  inaccuracies  in  Swete's  edition. 
Maes  and  Drusius  I  quote  from  the  Critici  Sacri;  occasionally  there 


4  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

will  be  found  readings  from  Swete's  and  Parsons'  apparatus,  also 
references  to  Field  and  Eusebius  (Onomastica,  ed.  Klostermann). 
While  in  the  first  set  of  my  Notes  I  have  recorded  all  divergences 
even  of  an  orthographic  character,  the  variants  in  the  other  two  sets 
have  in  the  main  been  confined  to  matters  that  count.  A  textual 
commentary  accompanies  the  edition. 

8.  I  use  the  folio-wing  sigla:  KB  AG  which  require  no  explana- 
tion; 0  is  the  Washington  manuscript  edited  by  Sanders;  r  =  54; 
0  =  75;  s  =  118;  R  =  ros;  3L  =  01d  Latin;  u  =  84;  1  =  134;  p=76; 
t  =  74;  u  =  ulpt;  f  =  106;  i  =  Cod.  Gr.  609;  z=44;  F  =  fiz;  A  = 
Lagarde;  ^  =  Syrohexaplaris ;  efh=Ethiopic  (codices  FH)  (€''-  = 
Ethiopic,  codices  CG,  occasionally  referred  to);  (E=Sahidic.  *  = 
prima  manus;  ^=  correction  by  the  first  or  a  contemporaneous 
hand;  2  =  correction  by  a  later  hand;  *  =  textus;  '"(after  a  codex)  = 
margo.  For  the  hands  of  BA  I  use  Swete's  sigla  as  well  as  his 
information.  Further  sigla  and  abbreviations:  |^^=the  Hebrew 
text  underlying  the  Greek  version  (Septuagint) ;  ^^  =  the  He- 
brew text  read  by  Origen;  ?^™  =  the  masoretic  text.  (©  =  the 
original  of  the  Septuagint;  aV^'=Aquila,  Symmachus,  Theodo- 
tion;  o'  =  the  Septuagint  column  of  the  Hexapla;  ast  =  asteriscus. 
In  the  Textual  Commentary  <(  =  from  and  >  =  leads  to.  Helbing 
=  Grammatik  der  Se^ptuaginta  von  Dr.  Robert  Helbing,  Gottingen, 
1907. 

9.  Postscript.  Thompson's  Coptic  Palimpsest,  Oxford,  1911, 
reached  me  after  the  article  had  been  set  in  type.  As  almost  the 
whole  book  of  Joshua  is  contained  in  that  publication,  I  have 
collated  Ciasca's  fragment  with  Thompson's  text  and  the  remainder 
of  the  latter  as  far  as  it  covers  the  Greek  text  here  published  with 
the  apparatus  in  the  third  series  of  variants.  I  append  here  the 
results  of  my  collation  (€'=  Ciasca's  text,  C^  and  from  162a,  12  C 
=  Thompson's  text),  leaving  for  the  future  a  fuller  discussion  of 
them : 

161a  1-3  drop  ^''^  after  C  |  17  -aas  C^  error,  the  scribe  had  in  mind 
p.  536,  1.  31  1  22/23  yoaofjL  C^  [  161&  1  read  tovtov^  C^'AG^]  avrwv  B\\€  :  > 
C^  I  Kat  =  C'l  Kara  €''  =  A®  |  7  a/Sts  €,  initial  t  dropped  out  by  haplo^raphy 
in  the  Coptic  text  |  10  ixppiov  C',  see  editor's  note  |  13  ^i<;^  C''  j  18  pa(3aa  C^' 
I  23  (f)€va€v8(i)p  C^  I,  162fl  2-4  evaiovs.  <j>cp(.^aiovs,  lefiovaaiovs  C'  1  6/7  Tors  fTro 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  5 

rrjv  eprifji.ov\>1^'^  \  12  Xaos  ttoAus  cf.  €,  prob.  iiiner-Coptic  addition  i!  1626  6 
eyw  is  expressed  in  C^     163a  1  eos  post  KareSttoKov,  prob.  inner-Coptic  addition 

1  4/5  fMia-epwv  Bh<£]  fjua.p(r€fx.(jiim.v  ^  =  fxja.apf.(iu)  pxiv  =  fJiaape^xDO  fxaiv  j  7  Aov  C 
(but  initial  and  final  letter  doubtful)  corrupt  ;  15  enrev  C  |  16  tovs]  prm  /cai 
C  I  10/11  (JTOfjxiTL  It^ovs  €  21  /?ao-tAeo)v  C  'j  164a  3/4  Sg.  C  j  5/6  o-wera^ev] 
+  ei  €■<£  I  16  is  C  23/25  kul  uTrwAeta  (=  avatpwvl)  aTrwAecrev  avrous  (+  v(ra 
v€vep7]v)  €v  (TTOfjiaTL  ^L(f>ov<; ;  the  order,  of  course,  may  have  been  changed  by 
the  translator  1646  7  wcrarTws]>C,  prob.  as  in  <£  accommodation  to  the 
translator's  idiom  |  9/10  Kat— e7rotrjo-ev]>C,  inner-Coptic  omission  tlii'ough 
homoioteleuton     18  vaye/3  C     165a  1  apa/Sa]  prm  art  <t  j  16  )8ao-av  C  f  23 

ao-e;;^a  C      1656  2  yepyecriv  C      5   yaXaaSJ  optov  yaXoaT  C  :  6  optov  €■   '    166a 

7  x^'^a  ^  10  avTTjv  C  (paraphrased  by  ierram)  14  ev]  prm  et  <!D  :  16  apa;8a] 
prm  art  £■  .  19,  20  ev  aye/3  <!i^  i  1666  3/4  Kat  tov  yepyeaatov  €■  ;  18  SoaySip  C  I 
20  yawret  G  =  yecret  cf .  <£,  hence  pointing  to  yecretp  '  22  apa^  G  =  C  |  23  Xefiiva 
€]  -\-  fSaa-iXea  o^Xap.  C  (the  sum  total  is  XXIX)  \  24  paK-r]^  C      167a 

2  <fivXr}?]  +  viwv  G  3  p.ojvar)';]  +  KX-qpovopunv  G  '  4  T17]  +  y>;  G  5  Tjp-icrecrti/] 
■qpaau  cjivXij';  puavaacrr)  G  6  is]  +  nX-qpovop-Lav  G  ,  8/9  ev  rw  Trepav  tod  topSavov] 
>G  1676  3  TTtto-av  G  I  5  avTwv  G  16  TTjv]  yr]v  G  <  168a  22  tov]  terrae  G  |j 
1686  16  lepews  G  ?  ]  G  missing  from  apx^v — opyr?.  1686  20 — 1706  1,  but 
through  change  of  order  the  wds.  Traarav  ttjv  [crwa]ywy7;v  ltqX  are  extant  at  the 
end  ]|  1706  2  arros]  a-xa-p  G  j  3  /XTj  fjLovo<i  G  1  14-16  o  ^s  0'  eortv  Kut  avros  eo-rtv 
KS  o  ^s  Kat  o  ^s  avros  otSev  G 

I  wish  also  to  add  ad  §  5  end  an  example  of  a  singular  coincidence 
between  IL  and  C  which  both  share  with  s,  the  three  standing  alone 
with  their  peculiar  text.  I  refer  to  5,  3  where  sC3L  add  after  IrjX  the 
sentence  Kai  eOrjKev  diixwviaf  aKpo^varicov  (prefaced  in  sC  b}'  the 
phrase  eK  Sevrepov,  also  found  in  iz,  but  repeated  from  vs.  2),  with 
which  cf.  Pirke  derabbi  Eliezer,  c.  29  ("-"-   ~"  niv^^n   "«   V-pl 

rrjz:c  nms).  Cant,  r.,  s.4(on4,6)  (r;"z:  cn-mb^-  an:  -rizyri) 

=  Eccl.  r.,  s.  11  (on  11,  2)  (nib^^'l  -"Zj  nniJ5  VI""-),  cf.  also 
Gen.  r.,  s.  47  (on  17,  23)  with  reference  to  Abraham  (r;"Zr(  '~"2V~ 
nib":'"),  and  contrast  Levit.  r.,  s.  25  (on  19,  23)  (n"23  S'."'-  Dp"2 
nbl"- ;  cf.  the  commentary  ri'l"-  "T  against  HjinS  niin"-). — 
Ad  §  7:  p  (  =  76)  is  a  palimpsest  certain  leaves  of  which  are  wholly 
or  partly  undecipherable,  at  least  in  the  photograph;  thus  the  evi- 
dence from  p  is  lacking  for  the  bulk  of  the  third  fragment  here 
published  (22:7  ff.). 


6  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    161a  ^KaduTrep  €7roti]ad^  39    X 

TT)   XofJiVW    Kai   TO) 

jSaaikei  avT'>]<i  : — 
^Kat  eirara^ev  Z?  40 

6  iracrav  rriv  opivrj 


k5.  161a     1-3  ]>o     1  KuOairep]  pnn  kul  rs  quod  non  dubito  quin  K  habuerit 

in  ultima  linea  folii  praeeedentis:  sic  IS-  et  sicut  ante  fecit  dabir  transponenda 

sunt,  ergo  /cut  >iL  [  e-Troirjaav  Krs]  tiroL-qafv  IL  j  2  kofxva  K]  Ao/?va  rs:  Ae/xva 
IL  I  4  ^  Kr  ;  5  opivr)V  Kr]  op-qvrjv  O*  (opivrjv  O^) :  yrjv  rrjv  opuvqv  1L  :  yr}v  T7]<; 
opeiVT)^  S  I  6/7  Ktti  T77V  7re8ivr?v  Kat  tov  vorov  [[votov  Kr]  vwtov  o]]  Kro]  Kat  ttjv 

VF  161a     vs.  396]  >iz      1   Kadairep  sine  Kat  uf  |  2  Ao/i,m]  Xo/3va  uf  I  4  •^  ul  I 

5  opLvrj]  yrjv  Trj<;  optivrj'i  UF  |  6/7   /cat  vaytfi  Kat  rr^v  TreStVT^v  Kat  tov  votov  Kai 

BciihAQAGS  161a    1-3  hA0AGS  (absque  signis)  >B(it€"<^   (€  incipit  a  rw  /3ao-tAet 

aDT?7s)  I  1  Kadairep  A®AGS]  prni  Kai  h  |  eTrotr^crav  A0G(v  SUperscr.)^']  cttoi- 
>jo-e  A  I  2  tt;  Xofxva]  rrjv  Xofxvav  h:  ttj  XefSva  ©AGS:  tt)  XejSfj-va  A  4  "^  h 
A0G  I  5  Trao-ai'  BhA0]  prm  rrjv  G  (sub  ^  )AS>{J-^)      TTjv  BhA0]  >A     opivrj] 

Textual  161a     1-3  The  omission  in  0  is  most  probably  due  to  homoioteleuton 

ommen  ary  ^^j^^  preceding  clause  ends  in  Kat  tw  (SaaiXei  avrrj?).  Where  namely  siL 
coincide  with  r  in  including  a  clause  or  word  wanting  in  B,  it  is  improbable 
to  assume  that  o  has  reverted  to  B.  Whether  the  omission  in  B  is  likewise 
due  to  error,  it  is  difficult  to  tell.  The  error  may  just  as  well  have  occurred 
in  IB/.  On  the  other  hand  it  must  be  owned  that  the  clause  rather  lags 
in  IS"".  Or  the  omission  in  o  (and  perhaps  also  in  B)  is  due  to  a  desire  for 
condensation;  iz  go  still  further  by  omitting  vs.  396  entire  ||  kui  Kadajrep 
rsh  =  "I  a;i<^1  M""  !1  €iroL7)(r€  AIL  =  niri''  P?"-   The  others  assimilate  the  number 

T    T  _ 

to  that  of  the  verbs  in  vs.  a  2  Xo/xva  Kh<  Xo^va  rsuf  possibly  =  nizb 
(comp.  'iZ.^);  or  o  is  an  error  for  e  (in  uncial  script);  Xep-va  lL<Ae^i'a 
©AGS  (A  has  both  /?  and  p.:  Ae/J/Ava)  =n33b  ^.'",  e=^'  in  unaccented 
closed  sjdlable.  h  construes  Trotttv  with  the  accusative  (see  also  163a, 
1.  14-15),  hence  rrjv  Ao/Avav  (-v  Greek  accusative  ending),  but  leaves  tw 
fiaatXet  '.  4-6  If  the  Greek  translators  understood  their  Hebrew  as  well  as 
the  author  of  the  masoretic  accentuation  (comp.  EV.),  they  wrote:  Kat  €7ra- 

Tu^ev  IS  TTua-av  ttjv  yiqv    rrjv  opuvqv  kul  Ttjv  j'aye/3  (or  Kat  rov  voToi\  COmp.  EV. 

and  the  South)  kul  r-qu  ire^Lv-qv  kul  Trjv  u(Tr]8o)6.  In  consequence  of  bad  exegesis, 
the  upper  point  was  deleted;  the  result  was  iracrav  ttjv  yrjv  T-qv  opuvrjv  {terrain 
montuosnm  11.)  and  still  further  by  a  change  of  construction  Trao-av  T-qv  y-qv 
T-qs  opuvrjs  (all  except  Kro).    A  alone  with  its  insertion  of  ev  arop-arL  $i(j>ov<i 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  7 

K    I6I0  Kat  Ti-jV  TreSivrj  X 

KOI  rov  vorov   Kat 
rrjv  aai^hwd^  kul 
rov<i  ^acriXei^  av- 
10       Tcov   KUL  ov  Kare- 

vaye/?  Kai  rrjv  TreSivrjv  \[yay€/3s]  nozeb  iL]]s  3L  |  8  acrrjBwO  Krs  3L]  aaiSujO  o  |  9/10 

[[rov]  >zj]  UF  I  10/11   KareA(€)t7rov  fi]   KareXnrev  UZ  |  14  ^o}v]-\-ei  avTwv  UF  | 

yrjv  T-qs  op(e)tv77S  B  rell:  yrjv  ev  (TTOfMiTi  $L<f)ovs  r-qv  opuvqv  A  |  6/7  xai  ttjv 
TTtOLvi]  Kai  Tov  voTov]  KUL  Tr}v  I'tt^ut  Kttt  TTjv  TTeSeti'r/i'  B(£:  Kat  Tr)V  vaye/?  /cat  rrjv 
■TreStvr^i'  hA©AG*  (S'"  a'  cr'  Kat  tov  votov)  :  Kat  tov  At/?a  Kat  ttjv  TreStvrjv  C  j 
8  ao-rj8w(9  BhCAOG]  aarj8a6  <t  :  acrtSw^  A:  50j-fc.]  S  !  rov?  BhCeA0]+7ravTas 
A  et  sub  •:>(•  GS  I  9/10  avTwv  h  (S"'  a'  a'  avTwv)]  avrr??  BCeA©AGS  |  10  Kat] 


(from  vs.  39  ?)  between  yrjv  and  ttjv  opuvrjv  shows  an  insight  into  the  correct 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  bad  exegesis  is 
to  be  charged  to  the  account  of  ©;  the  text  then  underlying  Kro  which  is 
preserved  in  its  integrity  in  1L  imphes  a  correction  based  perhaps  on  the 
version  from  wliich  voto^  was  derived.  In  the  immediate  ancestor  of  Kro 
namely  yrjv  rrfv  had  dropped  out,  either  by  homoioteleuton,  or  because  yrjv 
was  miswTitten  Trjv  which  naturally  entrained  the  loss  of  ttjv.  Hebrew  nj5 
was,  of  course,  left  untranslated  by  either  version;  Origen  supplied,  pre- 
sumably from  Aquila,  Trjv  sub  ast;  what  resulted  was  unreadable  Greek: 
Trjv  iraaav  Trjv  yrjv.  hence  the  correction  in  A:  Trjv  -rraaav  yrjv  '  The  Hebrew 
order  M^i'lTll  23:ni  is  preserved  everywhere  except  in  Kro.  Was  Kat 
TOV  votov  an  afterthought,  i.e.  an  insertion  from  the  margin  which  was  put 
in  the  WTong  place?  Comp.  uf  with  their  doublet.  Doublets  are  said  to 
be  characteristic  of  Lucian  233  was  transhterated  by  <&  as  vaye/3  which 
was  corrupted  in  Be  into  vajSai.    The  stages  are  as  follows :  vaye^  Kat  > 

Fa/3ey    (so    71)    Kai>va^eK    KaL>va^e    Kai>va/3aL    Kat.      Kat    has    caused    the 

omission  of  a  final  k  in  a  preceding  place  name  quite  frequently;  just  as  on 
the  other  hand  ev  led  to  the  dropping  out  of  the  initial  v  of  a  name  follo^\ang 
':  AccorcUng  to  5",  a'  a'  rendered  ZIC  by  voto^;,  hence  the  voros  in  uf  by  the 
side  of  vaye/3  and  in  Kro  in  the  place  thereof  C  apparently  found  \nl/  for 
~;C  'I  nazeb  3L  is  a  corruption  from  nageb  '  6  uarjSwd]  written  in  some  copies 
uarj8w8  (spirantic  pronunciation  of  6  and  8) ;  hence  the  confusion  with  io^^l 
in  S;  the  reverse  occurs  like-nise  '  Is  aarjSad  <£  due  to  tyjv?  The  tendency 
to  change  the  plural  into  a  singular  may  be  witnessed  elsewhere;  comp. 
yaAtAa^  168o,  21/22.  Other  examples  are  available  9  bj  in  front  of 
□r;"2^"«  which  was  wanting  in  the  Kowrj  was  supplied  by  Origen  i.  9/10 


8  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    161a  XeiTTOv  e^  avTco  X 

SiacTeaooa/xevov' 
Kat  irav  evirveov 
/cat  ^(ov  e^coXo- 
15       dpevaev  kul  ave- 
OeixaTLcrev   ov  rpo- 
TTOV  eveT€iXaTO 
/c?  0  d§  IrjX'  :   "  Kai  €-  41 

avTwv  Kro  ?L]  avTrj?  S  |  10/11  KareA(e)i7rov  Ks3L]  KaTeXiirev  ro  13  evrrveov  K] 
€fnrv€Oi'  R    14  Kut  ^wvKr]  ^wt/s  {vitam;  sequitur  ef)  3L  ?    14/15  e^wAo^pevo-ev  K] 

etoAo^pevo-ev  ro:  e^wAo^peucre  S :  t^oiXoOptvaav  ^  15/16  Kat  ave^€p.aTto-ev  Kr] 
>3L  I  aveOefJuaTLO-ev  Krs]  ava^e/xario-ev  O  j  18  •[  K]>r  j  18/19  xai  CTrarafev  Is 

18  ^  1  I  18/19  Kai  eiraTaiiv  is]  kui  aTrcKTCivev  ai'roi^s  ts  uf :  orvaTreKretvev  aurors 

>omil  i  10/11  icaT£A(€)i7rov  BhAG]  KareAeiTrav  A  :  KartXifiirav  0  11  cv  avrw 
h]  avToiv  B(£C:  €v  avTT)  A0AGS  (G  ev  —  avTt]  ,  sed  ponendus  est  obelus  ante 
ev  ut  in  5)   I  12  Siao-ecrwo-p.evoi' A©]  o-eo-wo-p.cvoi' BhAG  j  14 /cai  ^ojv]  ^ojtjs  BC(£A 

et  sub  —  G*  :  ef  uvtt^s  A©  :  >h  j  14/15  e^wAe^pevcrev  B(f;]  €^wAe^pei'o-av 
hCAQAGS  ,  15/16  Katai/£^e/>iaTto-£i/]>oinn  I  18li^ABrell]>C  |  ^A©  ,  18/19 

avTO)v  Kro3tuFh=nri("^b«)  =  a'  «■'  according  to  S";  ®  wrote  ai;Tr7s  = 
r;("-b"^).  The  translator  saw  the  antecedent  of  the  pronoun  in  the  last 
place  name  mi'^i ,  riqv  aar)8oiO;  or,  if  we  are  charitable  enough,  in  : — xn 
I  10  KuL  KrILdf,  an  innocent  addition,  not  warranted  by  1?'"  ;  10/11  KareAi- 
TTov  (or  the  vulgar  form  KareAtTrav  A;  its  consort  ©  inserts  a  parasitic  p.  in 
front  of  the  ir,  see  Helbing,  22).  The  singular  (rouzh)  =  l?'"  (subject 
Joshua)  [j  11  avr<Dv  or  €$  avrwv  or  ev  avrrj  not  in  ii?™.  The  former  (avTMv  or 
ei  avTo}v)  would  correspond  to  Drib  (comp.  8:22),  the  latter  to  nZ  (comp. 
10:30).  Probably  additions  due  to  reminiscence  of  the  parallel  passages  || 
12  BLacrtcrwafjievov  OV  the  simplex  aecrwafxevoi',  an  inner-Greek  variant  13/14 
In  order  to  differentiate  H-"!""  bj  DXI  from  "l*£:n  b«  PJ<T  <§  may 
have  written  ttuv  ep.7rv£ov  ^ojt^s,  although  11:11  where  there  was  more  cause 
for  differentiation  both  'I'S;  and  ri-'wj  are  rendered  indiscriminately 
efiTTViov.  Origen  naturally  obeUzed  ^wt/s.  His  Greek  text  was  therefore 
akin  to  B.  Kr  have  ttuv  e/xirveov  kul  ^wv;  perhaps  a  doublet,  i.e.  some 
translator  rendered  n'2'1';  by  ^wv  (comp.  Deut.  20:16  ow/ie  viinim  August, 
for  omneni  spirantem  5L).  hA©  have  simply  wav  efiTrveov,  A©,  however, 
introduce  €$  avrrys,  comp.  €$  avroyv  UF  (on  the  top  of  Kat  ^wv) ;  the  phrase 
was  added  in  some  copies  on  the  basis  of  parallel  passages  '  14/15  The 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  9 

K    I6I0  TlaTa^ev  i?  otto  ku-  X 

20       §>;■?  jBapiny   Kat  e- 
&)?  ja!^i]^'   Kat  7ra- 
crav  ri]v  yi]v  70- 

^OV    €0)9   77/9   7a- 

^acov   *'7ravTa<i  42 

25       Tou?  ^acrtXei^;  tov- 


Kr]>1L  !  cTrartt^ev  Kro]+ai;Tovs  S  |  20  /cat  Kr]>1L  \  22/23  yo^ov  K]  yoCofJ.  V. 
yo/xot,  o :  yocro/i,  S :  yacro/A  IL  |  23  yr^s  K]  tt^s  ro  3L  :  prm  rr^s  S  '  24  Travras  Kro] 

prill  Kut  s  3L 

iz  ■  22/23   yo^oi']  yoaofj.  UF  ]  23    yr??]   7775  ufi   :  prm    tt;?    Z  '  24    Travras]    prm 
Kttt  UF  I  25  — 


Kat  tTraraitv  is]  Kai  aTre/cTetvev  avTOvs  is  A0AGS   (absque  signis) :    >BhC(t^^  \ 

20  K:ai]>omn  21  Kat]  Kai  rrjv  A  et  sub  •)«(•  G  (5  Kttt  tantum  sub  •:>(•  habet): 
>Bh€eA0  22  T-qv  yrjv  CA@]  yrjv  AGS:  ttjv  Bhe  ;  22/23  yo^ov]  yoaov  €G 
cf.  =S:  yoo-o/x  BbeA0A  23  yr?s  0]  ttjs  B  rell  24  Travras]  Traoras  A  (sic):  prm 
Kai  oran     25  — 

sing,  and  plur.  as  in  the  case  of  ""i^'l'r;  ;   but  note  how  inconsistent  the 

codices    are       15/16  Kat    ave^e/Aartcrev    KrUF    a    doublet.      ava^e/Liart^etv    for 

□■"-^riri  is  more  hteral  than  e^oAe^peveiv.  Comp.  EV.  utterly  destroyed  with 
the  margin:  Heb.  devoted  avadqMiTicrtv  0  ^nthout  the  augment  which  all 
the  others  have  18  l^X  omitted  only  in  C  18  19  The  Hebrew  Ul'^ 
"'I'ln*  is  resumptive  of  ""I'lri"  m^'I  at  the  head  of  vs.  40.  A  translator 
hke  <&  might  condense  the  text  if  he  chose.  The  clause  is  according!}' 
omitted  in  Bh(£€"'l..  It  was  then  restored  by  the  recensions.  Origen 
wrote  Kttt  aiTtKTuvev  avTov<;  ts.  Observe  that  the  ast  is  wanting  in  GS.  Is 
that  the  reason  why  the  clause  is  retained  in  A0  ?  Origen's  wording  pene- 
trated also  into  uf  (iz  omit  Kat  and  write  crvvairtKTuvev ,  so  as  to  indicate 
that  the  verb  is  resumptive  and  that  the  clause  is  in  the  nature  of  a 
summarj').  In  the  recension  underlying  Kr  the  clause  is  rendered  Kat 
eiraraUv  ts;  apparently  from  another  source.  Observe  the  difference  in  the 
verb  and  the  retention  or  omission  of  the  object.  Aiv  exegetical  difference 
and  perhaps  even  a  textual  variation  underhe  the  two  renderings.  Origen 
read  D"*^  with  1^"  and  took  the  suffix  to  refer  to  the  kings  mentioned  in 
vs.  40.  Accordingly  he  employs  the  verb  airoKT^tvuv .  The  other  recension 
possibly  read  ni"!  and  took  as  its  object  the  afore-mentioned  localities; 
hence  iraTatjauv  20  The  idiomatic  1  in  "7"  1"1  is  expressed  in  Kr,  but 
left  untranslated  in  the  remainder  of  the  witnesses.     In  this  instance  the 


10  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1616  TOV<;  Kat  [ttjv  yrjv^  X 

avTCov  [eA.a/Set'] 
t?  et?  aira^  [o  7ap] 
tf?  0  ^9  o-i/t'[e7ro\e-] 
5       /ici  TO)  ti7[X :   'e7e-]  1  XI 


1616     4  o  Kro]>s  ;  6^  Ko]  +  ti7X  rs3L  !     4/5  o-vvcTroXe/xr?  o     5/7  eyevero 


1616      1   Tovrovs]  avTUiV  ufi  :    >Z      3  o  yap]ort  UF      4  o  0'^  ulF]>pt      ^s]+ 


1616  1  TovTOv;  AG5]  auTcov  BhCC  TovTOVi  Kat]  avTOv  (•)  rows  Kara  A®  ] 
2  eAajSev  €A©AGS]  tiraraitv  Bhef'  3  o  yap]  on  BhA0AGS  |  4  o  ^s  liC]  + 
l^\  B0AGS:   ><t\  I  5  lyjk  BhCCf''A0]+    ^^Kat  avearpeij/tv  Is  «s  yaAyaXa  A: 


recension  represented  by  Kr  goes  further  than  Origen  in  imitating  the 
Hebrew.  But  the  1  in  '^yz'\  ""T  is  left  out  even  in  Kr  ii  21  Kat  expressing 
the  "I  of  1^™  both  in  the  recension  underh'ing  KrIL  and  in  Origen.  The 
latter  also  inserted  rrjv  to  express  HS ,  both  words  being  prefixed  by  an 
ast.  In  this  instance  (contrast  above  on  11.  4-6)  the  second  ttjv  is  wanting 
not  only  in  A,  but  also  in  G.  The  introduction  of  Kat  is  in  this  case  not  a 
matter  of  idiom,  but  of  text  and  exegesis.  If  we  omit  the  conjunction,  the 
land  of  Goshen  as  far  as  Gibeon  is  tantamount  to  the  territory'  between 
Kadesh  and  Gaza.  See  GemoU,  Grundsteine  zur  Geschichte  Israels,  1911, 
35  f .  '  22  Tr)v  y-qv  was  apparently  wTitten  by  <S  (comp.  C) ;  yrjv  dropped  out 
subsequently  through  error  (hence  B  and  its  consorts)  22  23  The  name 
"Z^  became  in  Greek  transUteration  yoa-ov  (so  C  and,  of  course,  Origen); 
the  corruptions  noted  above  all  admit  of  easy  explanation  I;  23  Here  T17S 
(against  y-qs  K0;  s  has  both:  rr^s  y???)  undoubtedly  represents  the  original  l| 
24  The  "!  of  ^."^  is  expressed  by  all  except  Kro.  It  is  the  1  of  summing  up 
and  might,  of  course,  be  missed  even  in  Hebrew    25  — 

1616  1  Towrovs  =  nbsn  1^.""  was  written  both  by  Origen  and  by  the 
parallel  recension  (KrIL)  ;  <&  wrote  avrtov  (B  and  its  consorts),  ^/  apparently 
read  nri^!jb"2  for  ribj^Pl  D'Zb'Zn  ■  The  Kotvr?  reading  found  its  way  into 
UF  (the  omission  in  z  is  due  to  condensation)  Ij  A®  unite  in  presenting  a 
worthless  reading:  avrov  Tov^  =  av  TovTov<;=av[T(Dv]  todtohs,  a  sort  of  a 
doublet;  Kara  is  a  corruption  from  kui  t^tjv]  '  eAa^ev  =  "i2>  ?^™  which 
reading  penetrated  also  into  C  is  common  to  both  recensions;  <5  wrote 
£7raTa^ev  =  ri2ri ,  comp.  VS.  40  '  3  o  yap  KrIL  against  oti  in  the  remainder; 
a  striving  after  less  slavish  Greek  '  4  The  omission  of  t)/A  in  Ko  and  else- 
where is  in  all  probability  due  to  condensation  in  view  of  the  presence  of 
the  word  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  With  tr/A.  also  o  $k  disappeared  in  (£A. 
Much  liberty  was  taken,  it  appears,  with  the  divine  names     5  The  converse 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  11 

K    IGlfe  Nero  8e  o)?  [  tjkov-]  XI 

aev  la^ifjL  [ySacrt-] 
Xeu?  aaco^p   OTrecr-] 
TiXev  7r/3o[9  L(o/3a/3j 
10       /3a(n\ea  fia\ pcov^ 


8e  (OS  T/Kovcrev  Kr]  ox;  8e  tjkovctcv  1L  I  7  ta^t/x  K]  ta/8etv  R :  abir  3S.  ,  8/9  aTrecTTi- 
Aev  K]  uTreo-retAei'  o:  aTreo-reiAe  rs  9  iaj/3a^  r]  iroban  ?S.  ;  10/13  /mpwv — 
fiaaiXea]  >S        10  /xapwv  Kro]  afxappojv  ^±        12    aofxopu)V  Kro]   (ro/xoppwv   5L  | 


i^A.  UF   I    5  TO)  Z^A  rf]  ai'TOts  iz       7  ta/Stp.  ]  ia/3n'  UF    '    10  fmlpuyv]  ]  /iixSwv  UF 


+'**-^-  Kat  av€aTpexl/ev  is  Kat  Tras  I17A  /xer  avrov  ets  ttoAc/iov  eis  tt/v  irapefi/SoX-qv  cts 
yuAyaAa  :  [[ets  ttoAc/xoi' ]  >  5 J]  GS  5/7  eyevero  8e  ws]  ws  8e  omn  |  7  ut/Sifi] 
tajSetv  hi0AG5:  ta/Jets  Bh*eA:  aj86S  C  i  7/8  ia/3.  ^aailXevs]  ]  f^aaiXev;  uifi  . 
h      9  tw^a/3  B  rell]  ttoa^  A:   twpap.  h  {   10  fm[po}v]  ]  pxippwv  B:  pxippov  €:  a/mp- 


process  of  condensation  may  be  witnessed  in  iz  which  replaces  rw  It/A  by 
avrois  'i  Verse  43  exists  only  in  Origen's  recension  (G5;  in  an  abbreviated 
form  in  A).  «s  ttoAc/xov  G  which  C  rightly  omits  is  merely  a  scribal  error. 
The  same  verse  is  found  repeated  in  1^"  in  this  very  chapter,  vs.  15  (the 
preceding  vs.  14  Ukewise  ends  in  b."<^-"b  D~b:).  As  the  verse  there  is 
fomid  in  ro  (alongside  mth  the  codices  representing  Origen's  recension; 
Lagarde  prints  against  liis  own  manuscript  on  the  authority  of  ]\laes  an 
obelus,  but  G  has  an  ast;  the  verse  is  also  extant  in  B'^'^'''^*^<e"'),  it  may  be 
concluded  that  K  hke^vise  had  it.  In  front  of  r.~»i.*^;A^,  as  Lagarde 
informs  us,  there  may  be  seen  in  his  Syriac  manuscript  an  erasure  covering 
a  word  of,  as  it  seems,  four  letters;  perhaps  it  was  U^^:il^  =  ets  TroXe/xov 
G  in  vs.  43  j]  5/7  <S,  of  course,  read  'J'ZZZi  """1  ^^'ith  1&"'  which  he  rendered 
somewhat  freely  ws  8e  -qKova-ev;  Kruf  (but  not  IL,  nor  Origen)  express  "H'T  !l 
7  The  uiI3[€:lv  of  the  two  recensions  (in  K  /a  is  a  miswi-itten  v)  is,  of  course, 
the  result  of  reverting  to  1&'";  nevertheless,  we  may  be  reasonably  certain 
that  <5  wrote  la/Si-v  Uke-nise  and  that  tu^eis  in  the  B  texts  (also  in  A)  is  due 
to  assimilation  with  01^77?    ZZ' ;    hence  perhaps  the  transposition  in  h: 

*■    T 

ySacrtAei's  laySets  aawp.  In  proper  names,  assimilation  of  one  name  to  another 
led  to  error  9  ia)/3a/3  which  escaped  disfigurement  in  the  B  texts  became 
LoxLfi  in  A  through  assimilation  to  Joab,  and  iwpup.  in  h  through  assimilation 
to  J(eh)oram  (graphic  similarity  of  P  and  B,  and  of  ^  and  p.);  a  sort  of 
conflate  of  tw/3a/3  and  iwpa/x  is  iroban  =  ipw/3up.  10  ""i""^  ?&"  is  found  in 
Origen,  whence  it  penetrated  into  uf,  whereas  KrU  kept  the  kolvt]  reading. 
The  latter  in  the  form  /xapwv  (in  pxippwv  the  gemination  is  inner-Greek; 
apappwv  with  u  dittographed  after  fSaaiXea)  is  what  ©  wrote,  and  goes  back 


12  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1616  Kai  irpo'i  /3[acriA.€a]  XI 

crofJiopcov  [/cat  Trpo?] 

^aatXea  a^^Lcfi  ' Kai  2 

TT/Oo?  T0U9  ^^aaiXeL'i^ 
15        Tou?  KUT^a  crt8ct)-] 
i^a  tt;!'  /iA[e7a\77y] 


13  al^C'*^]  K]  a^r?^  s:  a^t/i.  IL  :  ^iffy  ro     17  o/atvvjv  ro]  opcLVYjv  s  1  18  Tr]v  K]  prm 


13  a^[t^]  ]  uit,L4>{va.t,y]4>    z)UF      14   tot;s]>P  |   18   T-qv  ]  prm  ets      21    -vepo)^  i 


(p)wv  (£:  joaSwv   AQAGS  I   12   o-o/Aopwv]  aofJiepwv  A0AG  (S  ^^j-i^a^) :   a-v/xoaiv 

BhC:   samo'an  e"^     13  a^[i0]  ]  a^eic^  Bhe:  o-i<^  C:   axtc^  A©:  ao-xa<^  G5: 

Xaaacji    A  ^   18   ttjv]    prm  ets    Omn  I  a[/oajSa]    h€AGS:    pafia   B(t^^:  pajiaO  A: 
pa(3a$a  0  i   18-20   Kat  irpos  Tovi  arro  /Soppa  cf .  S™  a^  cr^  Kat  Trpos   rov<s  /?ao-iXets 


to  :ln»  =  *"lS^-  12:20  where  it  is  combined  with  "T"^":;  \\  12  The  readings 
of  the  two  recensions,  aop-opoiv  and  aofjiepwv,  unless  corrupted  from  aep-epwv, 
presuppose  ".i~*«UJ  in  the  place  of  ",i^"^  r  .  The  B  texts  have  crv/xowv, 
comp.  12:20.  If  the  reading  be  correct  (it  is  quite  possible  that  it  is  cor- 
rupted from  dvfjipwv  or  crvfjiopwv),  the  translator  read  '^^"'2'Z  ("  and  ~i  were 
similar  in  a  transitional  alphabet  after  ;:;  had  been  opened  at  the  top)  || 
13  ax(Ta<t>  of  Origen  (x"o-a<^  A  is  faulty)  =  ." CTS  1^";  but  axa-acf),  I  beheve, 
was  also  written  by  <§.  Owing  to  the  similarity  of  pronunciation  between 
<f)  and  spirantic  fi  (comp.  above  a  remark  on  6  and  8),  axcra4>  was  mis- 
written  ax(Ta/3  and  then  by  assimilation  to  the  name  n"7~55  =  ax(Ti;8,  a^t^ 
(which  under Ues  aiip.  IL),  a$L(j>,  a^t^  {$  miswritten  as  0-  Through  haplo- 
graphy  after  ySao-iAea,  the  initial  a  dropped  out,  the  scribe  having  in  mind 
^'■4>,  7"  ■    "■X'-i*  A©  is  a  cross  between  axo-a^  and  u^t<^      15/16  In  ^.^, 

"in^l  "ili^'J  ^"^  appeared  as  "TiariZ^  "im  -  ;  the  current  Greek  text 
was  retained  by  both  recensions  '  18  eis  which  is  omitted  bj^  K  alone  should 
be  restored  '  The  dropping  of  the  initial  a  in  apa(3a  (B(£.^^)  is  not  original, 
but  proceeded  from  the  mistaken  interpretation  of  the  a  as  the  Hebrew 
article  (n)  which  indeed  would  be  redundant  after  the  Greek  article.    pufSa 

T 

made  certain  scribes  think  of  Rabbah  (in  Ammon) ;  hence  pa^aO  A  pajiaOa 

(with  dittographed  a;    airevavri  follows)  0  '    18  20   kul  Trpos  Tous  UTTO  fSoppa 

KrILl'f  is  derived,  as  we  may  gather  from  S™  (where  read  with  Field 
l-»ii^,.),  from  a'  a'  and  represents,  in  agreement  with  1i?™,  the  parallel  to 
Tovs  Kara  criSwva  rrjv  p.i.yaX.-qv  <5.    Note  again  that  the  second  element  of  the 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  13 

K    1616  Kai  njv  a\^paj3a  /cat J  XI 

7r/309  TOL'[?  aTTO  /Sop- J 
20       /oa*   aTreyfai'Ti  ^e- 1 
vepeO' '   K^ai  ev  rrj] 
ireSivrj-   K^ai  et?] 
<f)€VvaeS\  cop-   Kat^ 

eis  R  ^S-  I  20/21  )(evi.p(.9  Ks  iL]  ^eFvepe6'r:  )(i.vvape6  o  \  22/23  Kut  ets  </>erva£8[ajp] 
K]  Kui  ets  <f>evavedSo)p  {et  in  faenanetdor)  31:  aecfieva  evSwp  o:  a€<f>eava  evScop  r: 

22  Kat  ]prm    Kai    ei?    aecfiewa   (cre(f)€va   fz)     |    23  <^evvaeS[wjo]   ]    (pewaevSwp  i  : 

Tovs  Kara  fSoppav  (1.  }-»^r^^  ViiX)il.;  cf.  C''e)]>onin  |  20/21  [xelvepe^ 
llC©AGS  (^iJ-s):  xev€pe6'^i  A:  /cev£pa)6l  B(£  !  21/22  [ev  Tr;]  TTcStVT?]  et?  to  TreStov 
[[e6s]>A]l    omn  |  23  <l>€vvae8[u}p]  ]     ^emeSSwp  B:    fenddar  (t:    cjtavavToip  C: 


doublet  comes  in  at  a  posterior  place  ||  20  aTrernvrt  =  13"  |^"  for  QJo  1^""; 
left  uncorrected  by  both  recensions  Ij  20/21  ni^!3  for  rii"'33  KcvepcjQ  B<£ 
(the  K  may  be  a  test  of  originality;  as  the  older  pre-Septuagintal  loan-words 
prove,  D  was  transliterated  as  k,  T)  as  t,  and  5  as  tt;  comp.,  however, 
Xev€pw9  i);  all  the  other  texts  have  )(tvv€pS,  the  form  singularized  and 
accomodated  to  other  passages.  The  double  v  (ro)  is,  of  course,  correct; 
X^vvapeO  o  with  a  is  certainly  defensible,  but  may  be  an  inner-Greek  variant 
due  to  similarit}^  of  sound  (a  source  of  frequent  error  transforming  a  singular 
into  a  plural  in  verb-forms  and  vice  versa);  x^^P^^^'  A  is  assimilated  to 
X^P^Odi  {Tr'3)  II  22  TTthivTq  KrILuf  for  irthov  was  apparently  taken  from  one 
of  the  three,  comp.  l£^*^i:.iia!\o  S'™  on  Kai  ets  tt^v  apaf3a  li  22/23  ets  <f>€v- 
vaeSwp]  For  nn  nii:  ll"\  It?«  probably  read  ^"n  nSj ,  comp.  12:23. 
Origen  wrote  va<jie68wp  (from  which  i/a<^eS8wp,  me^eSwp  were  easily  developed) 
=  "li'n  Dij ,  comp.  Pi2ri  17:11.  In  view  of  /xac^era  B  in  the  passage 
just  mentioned  which  it  is  easy  to  correct  into  mc^era,  I  believe  that  the 
original  of  <§  had  va</>er8wp,  and  that  it  was  corrupted  through  transposition 
into  fpaverSwp  or  ^emrSwp  (comp.  ^o5^JLs  <S>  here)  to  which  all  the  other 
variants  are  reducible.  eSSwp  may  stand  for  ev  Swp  (comp.  ro  and  uf)  = 
"lil  "y  •  e  may,  however,  represent  an  original  6;  then,  of  course,  va<fied- 
8(Dp  (with  6)  was  the  original.  The  corrupt  reading  was  retained  by  the 
K  texts,  crec^eva  evSwp  o  is  corrupted  from  e?  (  =  £is)  <^evaevSwp;  in  r  an 
irrational  o-  was  inserted:  o-e<^ea-va.  uf  have  the  correct  o-e<^e'v>a  by  the 
side  of  ets  ij  24/25  K  shares  with  r  an  omission  which  is  clearlj^  due  to 
homoioteleuton.  6  joined  the  last  word  of  vs.  2  to  vs.  3;  the  translator's 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  thus  reveals  itself  as  exceedingly  poor.     Certainly 


14  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1616  et?  TOi/?  ^TrapaXi-^  XI 

25        ovi  ■'^0|3/oa[iOi'9  /cai]  3 

162a  a/jiopp  \aiov<i-   kul 

feuaioli'?  Kai  le- 
l ^ova^aiovi  Kai 
I  0e/}]e^eou?-   TOv<i 
5       lev  rja)  opf   Kai  X'^t- 
[ratoluf  TOVi  vtto 

Kai  ets  va<f)edou}p  S  1  25  ^oppatous  Kr  IL]  prm  tous  ^avavatons  aTro  avaroXwv  Kai 
Toi's  TrapaAtovs  [[^(avaveovs  O  |  ax  oj  OS  j  ;(oppatov?  Kro  3L]  ;(oipatovs  S 

162a  2  emiovs  r]  eucheos  3L  |  3  -atous  Krs]  -eors  o  |  4  -e|^^eovs  Ko] 
-e^atovs  rs  j  5  opt  K]  opet  R  |  8  yrjv  r]  tt^v  3L  |  /xowtrav  K]  fioiocrav  s :  (Sutwcrav  Y : 

(f)avvaevSo)p  z  :  <^evaev8ojp  rell  j  24/25  [7rapaXi]oi;s]  +  X'^vavatovs  awo  avaroXwy 
Kai  CIS  Tovs  irapa\iov<; 

162a  [ap,opp]atous]  prm  tous  |  2-8  tov<;  ^eTTaiov;  rovi  vtto  ttjv  €pr]fJiOv  €ts 
ryjv  fia(T(f)Ofj.  •   kul  rovs  c^epe^atous  tov<;  ev  toj  opet  •    Kat  rovs  te/Joucratous  tods  ev 

ic?M.s  S  :  va(/)e88a)p  h  :  va(j>e8wp  A*G*  :  vacjiedSwp  A^QAG^  {0  superscr)  | 
24  — 

162a  8  €ts  rovs  TrapaXtous  ^avavatovs  aTro  avaroAwv  Kat  ets  tovs  TrapaXtovs 
afxoppaiov;  kul  evatot's  Kat  te/Sovcratous  Kat  (ftepe^aLOv;  rovs  ev  tw  opet  •  Kat  rovs 
)(eTTatov'i  rovs  vtto  tyjv  eprj/Jiov  ets  Tr)v  fjM(Tf.vfjuiv  [[evatovs.  ujSovrruiois,  </)epe^aiovs] 
</)epe^uioi's,  evatovs,  leySovcatovs  ^  |  ep7;/xov]  +  ev  rco  opet  C :  +  Kat  <£     (jLaaev/xav 

^T-Sn  D^"1  r-^T'-"-  •;":-"  D"2  cannot  mean  "  by  the  sea  the  Canaan- 
ite  at  the  east,  and  bj'  the  sea  the  Amorite  ";  the  translator  covered  up  the 
awkwardness  of  the  Hebrew  by  the  use  of  a  Greek  adjective:  TrapaAtos. 
Neither  of  the  two  recensions,  however,  dared  to  alter  the  text,  though  the 
correct  translation  was  available  in  o-'  (comp.  S").  U'^^iJo  of  S  may  seem 
to  be  a  slight  adaptation  to  ?|?™;  but  probably  it  is  an  error  (a  likewise 
omits  the  1)  !  25  The  Horites  (concerning  whom  see  E.  Meyer,  Die 
Israeliten,  330-345;  Gemoll,  he.  cit.,  349  ff.)  are  peculiar  to  the  K  recension; 
textually,  "ir;  is  a  pendant  to  "^in  later  on  The  order  of  the  nations  after 
the  Amorites  is  the  same  in  Origen  (and  thence  also  in  uf)  as  in  ll?":  'fir; , 
"T^i  ,  "CIZ" ,  ■'"1m  ,  while  the  K  recension  follows  the  order  of  the  current 
Greek  texts:  nrr,  "C1l^  "T^i  ,  "Dr  (C  alone  deviates  from  the  order  of 
the  B  texts  with  an  arrangement  of  its  own).  While  uf  reintroduce  the 
Hebrew  order,  their  text  is  complicated  in  that  they  retain  with  "rir , 
though  they  place  it  first,  all  that  follows  "ir;  in  the  form  of  B  (with  the 
readings  ep-qp-ov  and  /Mta-cfjop.) ,  while  after  "^1"  which  they  place  last  they 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  15 

K    lG2a  f"'"^?'^]  €pj]fiov  et?  XI 

[77;^!  fJLocoaav  : 
r^Kai  e^^i]X6ov  at  ira-  4 

10        IpejJL^jBoXaL  avTco 

Ikul  o]t  /QacrtXet?  av- 

iSowaui'  0:  fxacraoafx.  It  |  9  *^  Kr  1  9/10  ai  Trapefx/SoXai  avTwv  [[at]  e  oj]  Kr]  avroL 

TO)  opei-  Kttt  TOv<s  ivaiovs  TOv<s  VTTO  TT^v  atpjxoiv  et?  TT/v  fjM.a<Tr]<f)a6  [[tol's  2°]> 
U  I  CIS  l*']>iz  I  TYjV  l°]>p  i  /xjacr<f)OfjL]  fjiaacfiw/x  U  ,  tods  tv  tw  opei  2°]>iz  |  pjia- 

B<£]  paaey^efx  C  :  fjxi(Te.jXfiaO  ll  :  iJiu<7rj(f>a  h-J|  BllCCC  :  ets  rovs  TrapaAtovs 
;(avai/a60vs(")  aTro  avaroXwv  ■  kul  ets  rous  TrapaXiov;  a/xoppatous  ■  Kut  tovs 
;^errutot's(")  kul  cf)€pe^aLOv<;{-)  kul  i£/ffovcraiovs  tovs  £v  tw  opet  •  Kat  tods  evaiovs 
DTTO  T77r  aepixwv  ei?  tt/i'  ixa<Tari<^a  ■  |[a/i,oppatous  SUp  ras  A^ ']  ;(avavatovs  A* 
(^ept^atoi's]  prin  Toi's  ©  vtto]  prm  tous  A©  ,  ttjv  2°]  yT^v  A  I  pxiaarjcjia] 
pxxa<T-n<^a6  A]]   A©AGS  (1.  U'">i^i  pro  U'^^^^yo)   j  8  ij  0  j  9/10  at  TToiptiAlioXaL 

give  what  follows  the  Hexaplar  form  (with  the  readings  acp/xwv  and  fjuaa- 
<Tr]<f)aO).  Hence  UF  =  KR+Hexaplar  modifications  worked  into  that  recen- 
sion. Note  how  ir;2  is  added  both  to  ''7"i2  and  "Cl^" ,  to  the  former  in 
conformity  with  the  K  recension,  to  the  latter  in  accordance  with  the 
Hebrew  7  epyj/xov  is,  of  course,  an  inner-Greek  error  for  eppuDv  ''\  8  yrjv 
R  comp.  T7]v  yrjv  A  is  to  be  restored  everywhere  in  the  place  of  rrjv. 
What  favored  the  change  of  r  to  T  was  the  circumstance  that  Alizpah 
occurs  elsewhere  as  a  citj'-  How  nili  -  was  transliterated  by  (5,  hides  itself 
in  the  kolvt]  variants  which  are  at  first  sight  baflfling  especially  if  we  include 
the  variants  in  vs.  8  (163«,  1.  7),  though  W.""  points  there  n'£'l'2  ■ 

Be  h  e  K  r  <>  s  IL  UF 

fiao'evfj.ai'    /xaae/xpLad    ^tacrexe/x    /xouiaav    jSuioocrav    iSouxrav    fj-woaav    fj.acrcroa/j.    /xaacpo/j, 
IJ.a<T(Twx      iJ.a<Twx  fiafftpav  fxaffcpajj,    jjMcrtpav  iJ.a<7r](pa  piocrcpa,        fiaffipoafji. 

In  the  lower  line,  s  comes  near  the  Hexaplar  form  {p.aa-a-q4>a{6))  which  (see 
above)  is  found  in  uf  in  the  first  place  by  the  side  of  the  other  form.  The 
Hexaplar  form  may  be  paralleled  elsewhere  in  the  Greek  Bible;  in  this  book 

comp.    18:26  ixtLcra-qpja.  (B),   fiaaarjcjia  (GA)  (roILA©  have,  however,  puu.cr<i)a). 

It  is  not  easy  to  explain  the  form  (confusion  with  n2i2"I?).    It  is  clear, 

T      "       ~ 

however,  that  the  Kotv-q  forms  shown  in  the  table  exliibit  no  trace  of  r].  It  is 
just  as  manifest  that  in  the  three  columns  on  the  left  the  silent  -^  is  repre- 
sented b}^  c,  whereas  in  the  remaining  columns  to  the  right  no  vowel 
corresponds  to  it  at  all.  With  a  view  to  the  reading  of  C,  the  reading  of  h 
(with  one  a)  in  the  lower  Une  is  certainly  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  B  (with 
double  0-) ;  moreover,  w  stands  for  o  which  latter  was  a  graphic  error  for  e. 


16  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    162a  I  Tcov]  uer  avrw  XI 

[(i)cr7r1e/9  rj  afx/j.o'i 
[tt;?  6]a\aaar]<;  ro) 

^Kat  a^p/xara  ttoX- 

l\a  (T<f)^o8pa'  "kui  5 

[avve^/SaXov  irav- 

IL     15  -6tL  Ks]  'dri  r  (per  compendium  o)     18  [(rvve\jSa\ov  Ivi'o]  (Tvvr]\9ov  s3L  1 

arj(f)a6  u'  (o"  SUperscr)lt  ]  fma(n(f)a6  p  :  ^ma-r]4>a6  U*f]]  9  1[  |  14  Trj<;  OaXaa- 
crr^s  ]  prm  Tj  e-TTL  to  x^lXos  [[r;  ]>fi  ,  €7rt  ]  Trupa  p]]  |  17  ^  ,  18  [cn've]y8aAov  ] 
o-wiyA^ov  I  20  wapeye-]  eye-  iz 

atrrwv]  aurot  omn  12  avTw  B  rell]+Xaos  ttoXus  A  et  sub  •>(•  GS  '  14  [ttjs 
^JoAao-o-r/s  Bli€<£]  prm  r)  em  to  xetAos    [[ctti]  irapa  A]]   A  ©AGS  \  15-17  Kat — 


On  the  other  hand,  in  the  upper  Une  B  with  -av  is  correct,  and  C  with  -e/x 
corrupt.  X  is  apparently  a  mistake  for  <^  to  which  the  consonants  of  Bh  in 
the  upper  line  also  seem  to  lead.  p.  stands  for  /?,  and  so  does  v;  the  latter 
interchange  clearly  points  to  the  spirantic  pronunciation  of  /3,  and  this 
shows  that  the  original  was  <^.  Hence  we  obtain  p.a<j€<^av  as  the  reading 
underlying  BhC^.  As  for  that  of  the  K  recension,  its  correct  form  appears 
to  be  preserved  in  pxia4>av  Ko  (and  with  v  corrupted  to  yu,  in  r;  v,  however, 
should  be  deleted,  comp.  ?!-;  it  was  introduced  from  the  parallel  passage 
where  it  belongs  of  right:  accus.  ending)  in  the  lower  line;  /xao-^oa/x  uf  is 
a  cross  between  p.aacf>ap.  and  pxtai^op.  uf  upper  line;  the  a  is,  of  course, 
correct;  pxio-cmop  l.</xucroa/z.</iatr(^a/A  (o<0).  The  form  underhdng  the 
readings  of  Kr  in  the  upper  line  was  clearlj'  fjioo(Tuy<.po(f>a-av<Cp.o(T(jiav  comp. 
p.o(T<f>a  11  lower  hne</i,e<^(ra(v)</i,ecr<^a(v)  (o<e)  10-12  In  the  place  of 
Cr!";~'I  ^S?"",  1^"  read  C~'lb'I ,  hence  avTOi  kul  ol  ^ao-tAets  uvTm',  which 
Origen  allowed  to  stand.  Xot  so  the  K  recension  (all  except  3L)  which 
inserted  at  Trapep/SoXiu  uuTa)i=2n"ir,"^  ,  but  in  the  process  lost  avTot=u~ 
13  Z"^  C" ,  which  is  an  apposition  to  CH"™"^  ,  naturally  was  wanting  in 
1^*^;  it  found  a  place  in  the  Hexapla  (a  mechanical  procedure  which  may  be 
paralleled  in  other  cases),  but  not  in  the  K  recension  14  Origen  likewise 
inserted  nS'l"  b"  ^-X  which  <3  did  not  read  or  else  omitted  by  way  of 
condensation.  No  signs  were  used  by  him,  hence  the  presence  of  the  plus 
in  A0.  It  was  also  introduced  in  uf  18  o-we/JaAov  Kro  and  Origen. 
From  an  unknown  source,  since  a  a',  according  to  Maes,  wrote  (not  w/xoAo- 
yrjaav — the  Greek  is  his  from  the  SjTiac — but)  <rvvecf>wvr)(Tav  (comp.  <S  Gen. 
14:3;  a'  has  there  (rwcySaAov,  whereas  a'  writes  o-vrqXdov).     All  the  other 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  17 

K    162a  [re?  oi^  ^aatX.ei'i  ov-  XI 

20        Itol  K^ai.  irapeye- 

{vovT^o  eiri  ro  av- 

Ito  Ka^L  7rapev€/3a- 

yXov  elTTt  Tov  vSa- 

\to<;  fi}apa)v  iroXe- 
25        r//-7;o"a(l  7r/30?  IrjX^ ' 
1626  '^Kai  enreu  «■?  7rpo9  6 

Iv-    firj  (f)o/3r]dr}<; 

airo  TrpoaooTTOV  av- 

T(ov   on  avpio 

5  TTjV   COpaV   TaVT7] 

irapaBtBcofiL  av- 

22/23  7ra/Deve/3a'^Aovj  Kroil]  +  CTt  to  avTo  S      2-4  [xapojv  Kro]  ficppwv  il- :  [xeppwjx  S 
1626      1  •[  Bjs  [  enreu  Krs]  eiTre  O     2  (f}ofir]9r]i  K]  (^o^tj^eis  ro:  (^0^77?  S     6  Tra- 

1626     5  Tr;  wpa  Tarrrj  iz    !    6   TrapaSiSwjLii]  prm  eyw   |   IrjX]  prm   (twv  pt) 

o-<^oS/3tt]>e»>  17  ^  0  18  [o-we]  /?aAov  AGS]  avvrjXOov  B  rell  19/20  ov[tol] 
hA0AGS]  avTot  B  :  avrmv  ^^^  19/21  oi'TOt  kul  7rapeyevovTo]>C  21/23  ein 
TO  av[To  Ka]t  Trapeve^a  Aoi'  BhC£]^  ALtS  :  Trpos  avrov  Kai  -KapevefiaXov 

£7rt  ro  arro  A  :   ctti  to  avTO  0      2-4  [/x]apwv]  /juippwv  BCl£  :   fxappinp.  b'   :  fxeppwr 

AAS  (,=t-ic)  :  fjLeppw  0  :  fjieppMfji  h*G  ;  25  Trpos]  Toj'  omn  (sed  V^-.T.'-'i,  S) 

1626     1  ^  Bh  A0     4  avpto[v]  B  rell]  prm  T-qv  G      5  rrfv  wpav  TavTr)[v] 

[[t77v]>G]]    A0AGS]v^Bh      6   irapaSiSwfjii]   prm   eyw    omn      6-8    avrov;   rerp. 

texts  (B,  UF,  sit,  also  A0)  liave  o-wtjXOov.  Hebrew  Ti^TI  'i  19/20  avroi  B 
(comp.  avTwv  (£■)  undoubtedly  an  error  for  ovtoi  B  and  its  consorts  place 
1~r,"'  after  "l  aL'-i  ;  so  also  the  K  recension.  Origen  changed  the  order  to 
accord  with  l?".  The  uncertainty  of  position  led  some  scribes  to  ^^Tite  ein 
TO  avTo  tmce,  both  before  and  after  /cat  irapeve^aXov,  so  s  and  apparently 
the  archetype  of  A0,  only  that  A  changed  the  first  into  Trpo?  avrov,  while 
©  omitted  kul  Trapevef3uXov  eiri  to  avTo  through  homoioteleuton  I  24  The 
transliteration  of  C1"^"^  (comp.  also  1626,  1.  17)  oscillates  between  fuippw/j. 

(fuippiov,  fxxipuiv)  and  ixeppwp.  {jj-eppwr.  jxeppw) .  The  former  was  wTitten  by  <§ 
and  retained  by  Kro,  the  latter  apparently'  belongs  to  Origen.  Either  pre- 
supposes HT^-  ;  for  the  a  of  <§  comp.,  e.g.,  puixavapeO  Deut.  3:17  B  ",  25 
Trpos  lijk  expresses  the  Hebrew  more  faithfully  than  tov  IrjX  which  &  wTote 
and  which  Origen  apparently  suffered  to  remain 

1626    4  '5  avptov  T-qv  transposed  in  G,  an  error  :  6  eyw  was  left  out  by 


18  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1626  T0U9  TerpoTTQ}-  ^I 

fievov^  evavTio 

IrjX'' •     T0U9   iTTTTOf? 

10       avTMv  vevpoKO- 

irrjaefi'   kul  ra  ap- 

fjLara  avrcav  Kara- 

Kavcrei^;  irvpL  •    '  teat  7 

i]\dev  0  Xao'i-   Kai 
15       TTa?  0  \ao<i  o  TToXe/xt- 

crT7/9"   €7r  avTOV<i  e- 

TTL   TO   vSojp''    fiapCO 

e^aireiva'   /cat  €- 
irecrov  ctt  uvtov^ 


pakSwfu  K]  prm  eyw  rIL  j  2/3  tctpottw/aci/ovs  Ks]  rerpoTro/ACvovs  ro  |  9  tT7A. 
Kro3L]  prm  mwv  S  1  11  -7rr?o-eis  Krs]  -tttjo-is  o  14  o  Aaos  K]  Is  'B%  \  17  fxxipw[v] 
Kro]  fJi.€pp(ov  1L  :  ixepptaix  S  !  18  e^ainva  R  j  18/19  eireaov  Ks]  CTrecrev  O  :  eTrcTreo-fv 

mwv  I  14  ^  I  o  Aaos]  is  |  18/19  eiredov]  eTreTrecrev  U  :  CTreTreaov  rell 


hA0AGS]^B  I  avTOvs]  TravTas  avTOVS  A  et  Sub  •)«(•  GS  I  7/8  TeTpoTTw/ACvovs 
B  rell]  T€Tpwfxevovs  A  :  ^.N.°1  S  (^.^.  ,:ue  S")  '  8  evavTto[i/]  B  rell]  ernvn 
h  I  9  i^A]  prm  tov  B  cf .  CCS  :  prm  viwv  A©A  et  sub  •>(•  G  :  prm  Travros 
h  I  11,  13  -TTTjo-eis.  -Kavo-ets]  pi.  <2&  13  irvpt]  prm  ev  Bh©  [  ^  BhA©G  14  o 
Aaos]  is  omn  |  16  ctt  arrovs  BhCCA©]  prm  /xer  avrov  AG  et  sub  -Xc  ^  17 
p«pa)[v]  ]  iMippoyv  BCeA  :  pxippwd  ©  :  ^=r^  S  :  pappiap.  Ghi  :  p^tppoip.  Ah*  | 
18/19  ETreo-ov]  cTTCO-ai/  A  :  eTrtTrecrav  B  (pi.  ee)AG(pl.  5)©^  :  eTrcTTCO-ev 
h0*  I  19   €7r  auTOvs  Bh    (.001  .Ss  Si)  ]   auTOis  A0AG  ,  20  ev  tij  opiv??]  SUb  — 

the  scribe  of  K  "  Travras  was  omitted  by  ©;  Origen  alone  supplied  it  ii  7/8 
TeTpoTrwp-evovs  all  but  A  is  evidently  an  old  error  ("quod  emendatum  ita  esse 
credo  a  sciolo  nescio  quo"  Drusius)  for  rerpw/Aevovs  (the  reading  is  found  in 
16;  82;  F;  Aid.;  Compl.;  ^.^i°i  S>^  apparently  is  meant  for  TerpoTrw/xevovs, 
while  -'^^  i'  ^  S™  expresses  T€Tpwp.evovs)  9  vimv  which  G  has  sub  ast  is 
wanting  in  Ji?"".  Did  l^""  read  "Z  Tib  ?  Nor  does  Travros  h  correspond  to 
an  element  in  li)-"  14  o  Aaos  K  is  a  clear  error  (the  identical  error  5,  9  C^) ; 
perhaps  is  was  miswritten  Z^A  which  is  frequently  paraphrased  by  o  Aaos  i 
16  p£T  avrov='\l2y  was  added  by  Origen  alone  ||  18/19  The  manner  in 
which  the  codices  divide  %A'ithin  one  group  on  the  question  of  number,  shows 
that  we  arc  dealing  with  individual  vagaries  of  scribes.  The  vulgar  form 
with  a  is  apparently  the  original;  the  K  recension  substitutes  the  classical 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  19 

K    1626         "iC^  20       ev*^  TT]  opivT)-  ^Kai  8   XT 

irapeScoKev  avroi/<; 

/C<f   UTTO^eipiOlS 

TO)  irjX''   Kai  eirara- 
^av  auTow   kul 
25        KOTrrovTa  aVTOV<i 
163a  KareSicoKov  eco? 

aiBcovo'i  T7]<i  fxe- 
yaXi]'^-  Kai  eco<; 
jxaaep'qp.wO^  airo 

r  :  inuasit  IL  |  19  avTovi  KR]-{-timor  31  |  20  opivr)  Kr]  oprjvt]  o  :  opuv-q  s  "^  rs 
1  23/24  Kttt  tirara^av  avTOvs  Kr]>1L      24  -^av  Ks]  -^ev  TO     25  — 

163o  1  avTOVS  KaTcStwKov  Kro3l]^S  I  2  CTtScuvos  Krs]  (nSwSovos  o  ]  4 
fuiaeprjfiwd  Ks]   fUKTipLfiwd   ro:    /Jua^epiDd   IL         4/5   airo    OaXaaar)<i   Kr]  >3L'    j 

163a      4    pacrepeixwd         7    yuacrt^av  ]    fx/xd^oafx         12    Sia(re(7a)cr/Aevov    uf 

GS  :  CK  T779  op€iVT]<;  <B  !  23    Tw]>omn  '  23/24    »cat   eTrara^av  avTovs]>omn  I 

XOTTTOl'TeS   B  rell]    KarCKOTTTOV  Kttt  h 

163a      1     KareStwKOv]    +   avTov<;    AAGS  |  4/5    luiatprffxaid    airo    6aXa(r(rr]^] 

form  with  o.  The  compound  is  manifestly  right:  cTreTr-  became  through 
haplographj'  ctt-.  3L  with  its  ^i»?or  stands  alone  20  ev  r-q  opeLvrj,  sub  obelo 
0rigen,  =  "'n3  (after  DHZ)  23  '24  /cat  cTraralav  avrov?,.  pecuHar  to  the  K 
recension,  represents  a  pendant  to  kul  /coTrrovres  avrovs  from  some  other 
version  '25  — 

163a  1  h  coordinates  kotttovtes  avrovs  /<are8tcoKov  This  is  good  Greek 
style;  the  pronoun  placed  between  the  two  verbs  goes  with  both.  Origan, 
however,  added  a  second  aurous  I  4  D""2  riS"'*!-  was  reproduced  by 
Origen  (and  hence  in  A©)  as  /xaa-pecfywd  /xafeltyu,;  in  13,  6  G  alone  reads 
fjui(Tp€<f)wdiJiaiiJ..  while  A  A  have  fJMaep€(f>w0fjua(e  ip.  and  0  fma-aep€<f>wOpxiifi  (<t 
dittographed) .  The  kolvt]  readings  of  both  passages  present  themselves  as 
follows : 

B(Ch  %  Keuf 

fiaffepwv  /xaatpiiid  fjuiffepijfjicjd  airo  daXaairrjs 

e  UF 
B  h  ro  ui" 

/U.acrepe5/ne/ix0W/aat/u  ij.acrepai6fjLefj.<pufMid  ij.apee(7e<pwd(.i'   /j.a(Te(pwdefj.ixa   /xacrpecpwdaip. 

fxapffecftwdaifj.  U 
IJia(rp€<pii}p.ai0  iz 

In  the  latter  passage,  the  reading  of  <£  is  corrupt:  tnu'ala  ('-wo'o/a;  Dill- 
mann  emends  ma  as)  acpeO  puup..     It  is  clear  that  in  B  ptp.  is  a  pendant  to 


20  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    163a  5       dakaa-ai}^'   Kai  e-  XI 

&)9  Tcot"  TreSccov 

fjia(T(f)av  Kara  a- 

vaTo\a<;'   Kai  eKO- 

■\^av  auTOV^'  eco? 
10       Tov  iuii]  KarakeL- 

(^Orjvai  e^  avrwv 

aecrwafievov'   Kai 

8La7r€(f)€vjOTa  •  9 

^Kai  eTTOirja-ev  av- 
15       TOL^  i<?*   KaOoTi  enre 


6  TTcStwv  K]  TratStwv  s :  TreStvwv  ro :  campos  IL  ]  7  iuicr<f>av  Ko]  /xa(7<^a/A  r :  ixoa<f)a 
IL  :  fxaar]4>aS  \  Kara  Ko-s]  Kar  r  |  10  KaraXei-  Ks]  KaraAt-  r:  KuraXrj-  O  \  11  e^ 
avTwv  Kr]>1L  I  12  a-ea-diafjievov  Ks]  8ia(r£(jo)(rfxevov  r:  saiwifs  ?l  :  (reo-to(T/xevovs 
O  I  Kttt  Kr]>11  I  13    SiaTre^euyoTa    Ks3l]   Sia7re<^euyoTas   r:  SiaTre^evywras  O  ] 


13 


Tre^euyoTa  z  |  14  ^  1  ]  cttoiei  iz  |  14/15  avTovs  1  |  15  Kadori  ufi  ]  Ka^ws  Z 

• _^ 


(tcov  A)  /Aacr/3e^w^(')j«.a(e)t/A  (-/Aatv  A)  AQAGS  :  /xaacpoiv  Bh€  \  6  ttcSkov 
B  rell  (IZsi-os  <S)  ]  TreStvwv  AG  !  7  /xao-<^av]  /JMaa-rjffiad  G  :  /xaacrrjipa  A®  : 
/Aao-[o-]r7<^a  A  :  }"»-35^  ^  :  /jxiaawx  B  :  /xao-wx  li  :  masoh  (t  I  9  -ij/av  B  rell] 
-i/'ev  A  1  11  e^  (habent  <£S'?)]>  B  rell  12  creo-wo-juievoi']  8tao-eo-wo-)U,evov 
(-av  h)  omn  1  12/13  Kai  8ta7re<^ei;yoTa  h]>  B  rell  !  14  ^  liA®  |  14/15  avrots 
B  rell]  avTovi  h  1  15  ti  B  rell]  prm  o  A  |  Kadon  A®AGS  (ii^  -f^l)  ]  ov  Tpoirov 


{juaifx.  and  that  <^w  belongs  after  /mo-epe  (in  h  the  final  /a  has  been  replaced 
by  6;  at,  of  course,  stands  for  e);  hence  B  read  fiacrep^ffiwOfMiifi,  the  e  after  a 
(unless  a  faulty  repetition  of  o-)  expressing  the  r  ■  The  lower  readings  of 
roiLuF,  corrupt  as  they  are,  seem  to  go  back  to  two  variants:  /Aao-epee^w^/mi/A 
(or  -firjfji)  ro?L  and  fiuapecftwOfiuLfji  uf.  In  the  present  passage,  utto  daXaaar)<i 
=  D''":]  was  inserted  by  the  K  recension  (all  except  3t)  from  o-'  (according  to 
Euseb.  and  &"");  while  uf  still  express  the  constr.  state,  Kr  reproduce  the 
absol.  state.  The  p.  may  be  a  corruption  of  fS=(t>  (see  above  on  162a,  1.  8); 
if  genuine,  then  M"  read  nV^Tl"- ,  comp.  nV^T:;  Jer.  31  (38):  39  ketib 
and  transliterations  in  (P.  IL  with  its  pxiaepwd  {z  for  s)  comes  nearer  the 
original  than  the  pMatpaw  of  BhCJ;  it  is  apparently  curtailed  from  pxiaeprjp.- 
(or  <t>)(od.  U"2  has  accordingly  dropped  out  of  the  B  texts  ||  6  Apparently 
TTcSitov  was  wTitten  by  ®  (see  above  on  1616,  1.  22)  |j  7  See  above  on  162o, 
1.  8  1]  12/13  Ktti  Sta7r£(^ei)yora  of  the  K  recension  a  reminiscence  from  the 
ground  passage  8:22  I,  15  ov  rpo-n-ov  was  apparently  written  by  ©  j   eiTrei/ 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  21 

K    163a  avTU)  «?•   rov^  lit-  XI 

TTOW  avTCOv  evev- 
poico7n]crev'   Kut  ra 
ap/xara  avrcov  eve- 
20       irp-qaev  irvpi:   ^" Kai  10 

€7r€crTpa(f)rj  (?•   Kai 
ira^  IrjX  fier  avTOv 
ev  rat  Kaipco  eKei- 
vco-   /cat  Kareka- 
1636  /Sero  r^r^v  acrfup'] 

Kai,  Tov  /3[acrtXea] 
avT7}<i-   Tjlv  he  a(y(opA 
TO  irpoTyepov  a/3-] 
5       ^(^ovaa  7ra\ao)v  tcov'I 

14  ^  r  16  avTQ)  Kas?L]>r  ]  17/18  evevpoKOTrrjaev  Krs]  evevpwKOTrrjae  o: 
evevpoKOTTTjaav  3i-  |  19/20  eve-Trprjaev  I\.]  ev€Trvpixre{v)  r:  eveirpTjaav  (s.  ev£7rvpicrav) 
cv  ii-  I  20  "^  Ks  ;  21  €ireaTpacf>r)  K]  airccrr pa^-q  R     24 — 

163&  1  /careXa^iSero]  obsedit  31  -ySero  Kro]  -/5e  s  ao-wp  r]  assor  3L 
(sed  OSOr  3,  18;   164a,   15)  I  3  avrr]?  KR]+a7reKT€tvev  ev  po/JLipaui  IL  \  4  Trpor- 

etTre  ]  everetAaro  16  tow]  pnn  Kai  1  19/20  eveTVp-qaev  uf  ]  KaTeKavae  iz  | 
TTvpt]  prm  ev  UF  j  20  1[  ul  !  21  airecrTpaffiT]  UF 

1636     3   77[v  8e  acrcop]   ]  77  8e  a(rcop  r/v  UF  1  8  -vav  1f]  ve(v)  upt  ,  8-9  7rav[Ta 

B  rell  i  et7re[v]  ]  everetXaro  omn  20  Trvpi]  prm  ev  omn  |  ^  BAQGt  I  21 
€TreaTpa(j>r]]  aTreaTpacf^r]  Bli  :  eTreorpei/'ev  A©G  :  aTreorpei/'ev  A  |  21/22  k<u  — 
avTov  h]>  B  rell 

1636  1  T[r)v]  A  et  sub  •)iC-  GS]>B  rell  j  2/3  >li  3  avry]^]  +  areKTeivev 
ev   pofX(f)ULa    A    et    SUb  •>(•  GS     I     77[v    8e    acrwp]   Bfi:AG]    otl   aawp    r]v    A0S  j 

KrI.  comes  closer  to  the  Hebrew  than  everetXaTo  which  Origen  retained  i| 
19  20  For  ""'^  we  find  eixiripL-n-pavciL.  eyu.7rupt^eiv.  and  Kura/cavetv.  The  plural 
in  IL  is  faulty  21  The  active  intransitive  in  Origen;  the  others  have  the 
passive.  The  forms  with  a  are  apparently  origmal  21/22  The  plus  in  the 
K  texts  and  h  introduced  from  parallel  passages  ,24  — 

1636  1  obsedit  IS.  points  to  a  variant  r-qv  which  expresses  rij<  both  in 
Origen  (but  not  in  A0)  and  in  the  K  recension  3  ZTH  riin  which  was 
missing  in  ?!?"  or  else  left  untranslated  by  <5  by  way  of  condensation  was 
supphed  by  Origen  sub  ast  (hence  omitted  in  A0)  whence  probably  it  found 


22  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1636  ^a(Tt\ew\^v  roi/-]  XI 

Twv   ^^Kai  [aTre/crei-]  H 

vav  TravT^a  ra  ev-] 
TTveovra  [ey  au-J 
10       tt;  ev  ^o\v(o  fta-J 

KUL  €^(oXo[6peva-d^ 
avTov<;  7ra[t'Ta9] 
15       KUL  ov  KaT^^eXei-^ 
(f)6r]  ev7r\^veov  ej 
avTTj-  Ka\^L  TT}v\ 


Krs]  TrpojT-  O  i  6  ^aa-ikeiwv  Krs]  (iacnXuov  O     8  [ev-]  ]  e/ut-  R      10  ev  Kos]  c/a  r 
11  -vatpas  Krs]  "X^PlO-?!  O      [av€-]  Kl's]   ava-  0      11/12  Kat  avcdcixaTtaav  avTrjv 
Kr]>31-      12  -deixaTLaav  K]  -^e/Aartcrei'  R        13/14  K?L]>R  i  15/17  Kat  — arr?; 
KrsiL]>0      15  KttT^eAet-]  Ks]  KareAt-  r  ,  16  cvtt-  K]  efxir-  rs  :  16/17   [e]  avTr] 

ra  t.v]Trv€0VTa  ]  Trav  efiirveov  UF      10/11  cv  <^o[va)  fui];;(aipa?]    ei'  CTTOfULTi  $l4>ov<: 
UF     I     13/14  ]  >  UF      I      15/17     Kttt  —  avTT?     Uf   ]    >    iz  16/17     ev7r[veov 


6  /SacrtXeiwv  B  rell]  PaaiXewv  <£  8  vav  B  rell]  -ve(v)  AA  |  8/9  TravT[a  ra 
ev]7rv£ovTa]  irav  £/x7rv£0v  B  rell  9  [ev]  ]  prm  •)«(•  o  :  G  cf.  €  9/10  [ev  av\Tr]  B 
rell]>A  10/11  <j>o[vw  fjualxaipaii]  (JTO^mTi  $L(f)ov<;  A0AGS  :  $i<}>€L  BhC  11/12 
Ktti  —  avTr][v]  ]>Omn      13   e$wXo[0p€V(7d]  ]  Sg.    AA      14  7ra[^VTas]  ]  Sub  —  G5 


its  way  to  11  on  aawp  r)v  S  (and  so  A0)  faitlifuUy  reproduces  the  Hebrew; 
AG  (and  so  uf)  go  with  B  in  reading  tj  8e  aawp  -qv,  of  which  r^v  8e  aawp  KrIL 
represents  a  graphic  variety  8  In  the  matter  of  number  again  individual 
divergences  8/9  The  plural  and  the  article  only  in  Kr3L  9  o  G  sub  ast 
expresses  n-^s  10/11  "^m  "Sb  appears  as  ev  ^t<^et  in  the  B  texts,  ei- 
arofuiTL  ^K^ovs  in  Origen  (also  A®  and  uf),  but  ev  c^ovw  /m^atpas  in  KrIL 
which  expression  (with  or  without  ev)  is  confined  to  @  in  five  passages  of  the 
Pentateuch  (Exod.  17:13;  Num.  21:24;  Deut.  13:15  (16);  20:13;  28:22)  I] 

11/14   KaL  av(.6f.pxxTL<Tav   avTrjV  RUF,   Kai    €$wXoOpevaav   avrov;   Travras    all    the 

others  (B  texts,  Origen  and  texts  dependent  on  him,  IL) ;  K  alone  has  both, 
that  is  a  doublet.  See  above  on  161a,  11.  15  '16  avrr/v  the  city,  avTov<;  the 
persons;  the  object  which  is  not  expressed  in  the  Hebrew  made  exphcit  '' 
Travras  was  obelized  by  Origen     15-17  Condensation  in  oiz    ev  avTrj  which 


K    1636 


164a 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua 


20 


aacop^  et'er7r/37;cre  1 
ev  TTvpf    ''/cfai  7ra-1 
aa<;  ra<;  TroXTet?  ToTl 
ISaaiKeoyv  [toi/tcJ] 
KaL  avrov<i  [tou?] 
^a(n\eL<;  av\^Ta^v^^ 
eXa^ev  «•    [/cat  a] 
^V€i\€v  aulrou?  ey 
[crro/iJaTi  ^ic^ou? 
[/cat  e]|fw\o^/3eu- 
[crez/  aluTOf?  oy 
[r/aoTrloi'  avveTa- 


23 
XI 


12 


Krs]>iL  I  17  11  r  I  18  eve  [Trpr/cre]  KJ  eveTrvpLaev  rs:  eveTrupto-av  o3t  [  19  ev  Kr] 
>IL  I  21  [toutw]  r]>1L  I  22/23  kul  —  a^rw]  KrolL]>s  |  23  avrov^:  Kro]> 
11  '  24av[;Ta)v]KriL]>o 

164a     1     -vetXev  rs]   -vrjXev  o  \  3/4  e^wAo^pev^o-evJ    EJr]  €^oXo6p€vcrev   ro: 

e  ]  avTT]  ]  ^  uf    :     18  eve  [TrpTjcre]  ]  €V€irpr)(Tav  UF    ^    19  If  U    \    22  aurovs] 
TravTas  UF  I  24  eXa/Sev  ]  crvveAa^ev  UF 

I  18  £ye[Trpriai]  <EAS]  pi.  B  rell  19  •[  A  |  21  ftaaiXewv  B*heAS]  /SaaiXeioiv 
B^  A©G  I  rourwl^v]  A  et  sub  vjC-  GSj>B  rell  i  22  aDrousJ  Travras  A  et  sub  •>(• 
GS  :  >B  rell 

164a     2  [o-To/Ajari  ^k^ovs  B  rell]  ^6^et  e  '  4   [crev]  heAOAG]  -crav  B  rell  | 

is  wanting  in  l^.""  all  except  it  '<\  18  Note  again  indi\adual  divergence  in 
the  choice  of  number  21  The  same  may  be  observed  with  reference  to 
(SamXewv  and  /SaaLXenov  (comp.  the  same  variation  above,  1.  6);  certainly 
the  reading  of  the  first  hand  of  B  (  =  h<e),  not  to  mention  two  representa- 
tives of  the  Hexapla  (AS),  agrees  with  WZyZT"!  ?H"  (though  nib-'^n 
would  have  done  away  with  the  awkwardness  of  the  present  text)  nbi^n 
was  apparently  missing  in  ?t?s;  both  the  K  texts  (except  1.)  and  Origen  (sub 
ast;  hence  the  omission  in  A0)  made  the  omission  good  22  23  The  omission 
in  s  in  all  Ukelihood  due  to  homoioteleuton  23  avTov<:  Kro  may  be  an 
attempt  to  ease  the  awkwardness  spoken  of  above;  Origen  wrote  Travras 
(  =  bl)  sub  ast  (whence  it  was  admitted  to  uf;  properly  wanting  in  A0)  || 
24  o  is  bent  upon  condensation  aweXafiev  uf  comp.  (rwaTreKreivev  iz  161a, 
11.  18/19 

164a    3  4  The  plural  in  the  B  texts  and  ii     7  Contrast  14    9-12  The 
passage  is  exceedingly  instructive.     In  the  first  place  we  learn  that  it  is 


24  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    164a  [^ev  fi^(ovai]<i  o  XI 

\^7rat<;^Kv   ^^ttXtjv  13 

[Tracra?  1  Ta<i  TroXei? 

10        [o-/xei']a9*    /cat  ea- 
I  T&)(x]a9  €7rt  TCOV 
'^^tv^(ov  avToov 
[ou/cj  eveTTprjae 


eiwXoOpevaav  IL  !  6  -[$ev\  K]  -^e  R  |  -wucrr;;  KsH]  wo-jjs  ro  |  7  «^  fS  |  9/10 
|K'e;;^w/i,aTt|^cr/xeras]  Kro]  Kex<^TLaix£va<i  s:  disruptas  %  :  -\-  a  eo-Tr^/cutas  ck 
vto/xaros  cr  tS/au/xevas  eKaarrjv  eirt  vij/ov;  Y  \  10/12  Kai  —  avTwv  Kr]!>1L  |  12 
[^tv]a)v  K]  OeLVMV  a:  drjvwv  r  |  13  eveirprjaely]  K]   eveirpLcrev  R  I  14  [ev  Trjvpt  K 

164a     7  If    1  I  14    [ei/  Tr]vpi]  >  UF  {   15    [aawp]    ]    prm   Tfjv   i  !  ^ov7?v     ]  + 

6  iX(x)(Tr)S  G  1  7  ^  A  I  TrXrjv]  aXXa  omil  !  8-10  Ke;(<nj/xaTtcr/Aeva]  +  avTwv  A  et  Sub 

•:>(.  G  (S™  .—..lai^LlLa^l:.  z   ^ziifli:^5  w»  UliZ  V:^  ^i^^  ])     10-12   mi — 

characteristic  of  r  to  incorporate  in  the  text  (not,  as  we  are  informed  by 
Parsons,  in  the  margin)  parallel  renderings  from  the  three  with  the  express 
mention  of  the  translators'  names.  The  circumstance  that  the  plus  is 
omitted  in  K  shows  that  its  omission  in  o  (not  to  mention  s  or  31)  is  not 
due  to  condensation,  but  that  the  matter  was  really  wanting  in  the  arche- 
type of  ro,  and  that  it  is  r  to  whose  account  the  amplification  is  to  be 
charged;  it  is  quite  possible  that  in  the  archetype  it  stood  on  the  margin. 
Hence,  in  similar  instances,  when  the  testimony  of  K  is  not  available,  an 
amphfication  of  the  same  character  found  in  r  but  wanting  in  o  (s3L)  will 
have  to  be  excised;  in  my  forthcoming  edition  it  shall  find  a  place  in  the 
apparatus  but  shall  be  cut  out  of  the  text.  P'or,  in  the  light  of  the  informa- 
tion gathered  in  the  course  of  this  preliminary  edition,  it  has  become  clear 
that  r  as  the  text  which  comes  nearest  to  K  must  be  made  the  basis  of  the 
larger  edition  in  preference  to  o  which,  though  the  older  text,  is  (aside  from 
its  bad  orthography)  in  consequence  of  its  propensity  to  condensation,  ill- 
suited  for  the  purpose.  As  for  the  uf,  the  data  so  far  accumulated  show 
that  group  to  have  been  contaminated  with  the  parallel  recension  of  Origen; 
its  variants  therefore  belong  into  the  apparatus:  in  so  far  as  they  are  not 
taken  from  Origen,  they  may  exhibit  readings  of  the  K  recension  which 
ascend  to  a  parallel  archetype,  and  here  and  there  may  be  preferred  to  those 
of  the  archetype  of  K  and  its  consorts.     Now,  a  case  analogous  to  the 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  25 

K    164o  [ev  Trju/Of   IrjX-   aWa  XI 

15        [acr&Jiol  fXQvrjv  eve- 

[7r/07;crjei/ i?"  ,'Vai  14 

[Traj/lra  ra  ckv- 
\\a  ai/r]?;!?  Trpoeuo- 
^fiev^aav  €avroi<; 
20        [ot  uiojt  l7]\-  avrov<; 


>R  3L  i  15  fiovr}V  KrolL]  +  avT»7V  S  '  16  -[Trpryo-jcv  K]    irpia^v  R  j  20  [oi]  Krs]> 


avTrjv  Uf  17  [7raj']Ta]  >  iz  [  18/19  CTrpovo/ievcrav  Z  19  eavTOts]  avTOis  f  | 
auTa)v]>omn      14  [ev  Trjvpi  ]>omn  ;  aAAa]  77X77^  omn      15  [ao-wp]  j  prm  T-qv  A 

et  sub  i^-  GS  P.0V17V]  +  avTTqv  <eA0A  et  sub  •;^-  G5  (A  transponit  avrr/v  et 
evcTrpT^crev)  ^  16  is  A0AGSJ  17^ A  B  rell  |  18  avrrj';  B  rell]  +  Kat  ra  kxt^vi/  hA  et 
sub  •)jC-  GS  19/20  Trpoei'o/Aevcrav  h^  ]  eTrpovo/Aevcrav  Bh*  rell  19  eavrotsj 
auTois  A  :  >  h      20  Ij;AJ  +  Kara  to  p-qfxa  kv  o  everetAxiTo  rw  Iv  [[tw  Zij]  Is  A]]  A 


present  I  am  in  a  position  to  adduce  from  an  earlier  passage  in  this  book. 
3:13  at  the  end  r  alone  adds:  a  a'  o-o^pos  eis-  6'  ao-Kwfjui  ev.  I  have  also 
come  across  additions  pecuUar  to  r  which  though  introduced  sine  nomine 
must  be  estimated  in  the  same  manner.  Comp.  3: 16  aoLKrjTov  (after  apa/Sa). 
On  a  different  footing,  however,  stands  eroiixwi  ibid.,  17  wliich  is  extant  in 
UF  hkewise.  ck  in  a"s  rendering  is  e\-idently  an  error  for  ein  (comp.  5"°;. 
On  the  other  hand,  a'  is  fuller  in  r  than  in  &'^.  6'  (comp.  S"*)  is  not  quoted. 
There  still  remains  a  parallel  anonjinous  rendering  (eo-rcoo-as  t-m  tw  divwv 
avTwv)  which  all  the  K  texts  (except  1L)  present  as  the  second  element  of 
the  doublet  which  is  peculiar  to  the  recension.  Origen,  on  the  other  hand, 
proceeded  in  his  usual  mechanical  manner  by  introducing  from  the  parallel 
version  just  referred  to  the  last  word  sub  ast;  the  result  (ras  K€x<j^fJMTia- 
fievas  avTwv)  is  awkward  enough.  What  is  the  Greek  for  disruptas  3L  ?  || 
14  ev  TTvpL  K  a  singular  reading.  There  is  nothing  in  il?""  to  correspond  to 
it  15  Tr)v  Origen  sub  ast  (hence  not  in  A0j  expresses  nx  avr-qv  (s,  uf, 
Origen  sub  ast,  but  also  A0)  expresses  the  suffix  in  r;~2b  16  ts  both  recen- 
sions (also  A0)  ^il?-";  h'jX.  B  texts  I,  17  In  iz  condensation  17/18  All  the 
texts  express  -bbz  in  the  place  of  -b.<r>  2'^"~  bbl'  18  n*^~zm 
was  supplied  by  Origen  sub  ast  (hence  its  omission  in  A0)  19/20  On 
Trpoevofxevaav  and  eTTpovofjievaav  see  Helbing,  79  20  The  addition  in  Origen 
comes  from  8 :  27  awrots  in  all  the  texts  is,  according  to  ^laes,  an  old  error 
for  avbv^  —  avOpwTTovi    20  ff.  The  omission  in  iz  is  one  of  their  extreme  cases 


26 


The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 


1646 


K    164a  [^XodplevaeiJ  i^  avat-  XT 

Tpajt']  ev  arofxa- 
\ti  |t]^ou9-  eft)? 
25        I ajra^Xea-ev  avrovi 
ov  KareXwrrev  e- 
^  avTcov  ovSeva 
evTTveovTa-   ^'ov  15 

rpOTTOV  (TVV€Ta- 

5  ^ev  «<?  fiavari  to) 
TratSi  auTOf  /cat 
fi,(ov(Tri<;  (ocravra)^ 

€V€T€L\arO   TO) 

ti)*  Kai  i§  ouTft)? 


O  I  21  e^w-  Ks]   £^0-  ro  I  22/23  avai[pa>vj  KrIL]  avepwv  o:>S    I    25  [a7rw]Aeo-ev 
Krs]  airoXecrev  O :  aTrcoXeo-ar  it 

1646  1  KareAeiTrev  Kro]  KareXtTrev  S  |  3  evirveovra  Ks]  e/u.7rveovTa  ro  j  5  -^ev 
K]  -$e  R  I  fiwvar]  K3L]  yawo-r;  r:  tw  /xwo-r;  o:  tw  fjnovar]  s  |  tw  2°  Kro]>s  |  7 
/Awuo-r/s  KslL]  /Awo-r/s  ro  ]  7/8  wo-awws  evcTCiXaTO  Kos  3l]^r  |  9  is  ovtws  Kr] 

20 — 1646,  10  avTovi  —  e7rot770-€v]>  iz  |  25  -Xeaev  ]  -Xecrav  Iptf 

1646     1   KaTcXiTTCV    Iptf]    KareXiTTOV   uiz    j    5    to    ]    >    Iptf    |    9  ti  outws  ] 


et  sub  ^  GS>  I  22  -[XoOp^evaev  AGS]  pi.  B  rell  1  22/23  is  avaipwv]>omn  | 

24  £a>s>ai  A  !  25  [a7ra>]X£0-£v  BAAGS]  pi.  he© 

1646     1  KaTcXeiTrev]  pi.  omn  |  1/2  e$  Bh  (cf.  eS)  ]>rell  |  2  avrw]  sub  - 
G&  1  2/3  ouSeva  evTTveovTa]  ov8e  ev  efx-irveov  [[ovSe  €v]ov8ev  A]]  B  rell    5  fiayva-r)  {p-wcrr] 
G)  ]prm  Toj  BhA0AG  \  Ta)l>h  ;  6  H  0  !  KaijXeAGS     2/3  /xwvo-tjs 
(oo-avTws   cvcTfiXaTO    BhA0]^AG    (/icocTr/s)    S  |  7   wo-avTCL)sl>e  \  9  lii  h©AG] 

of  condensation  ii  22,  25,  1646,  1.  1  The  three  verbs  are  consistently  singu- 
larized  in  Kr  (is  is  added  as  an  exphcit  subject  after  the  first,  so  also  ILuf 
which  therefore  singularize  the  first  verb),  and  just  as  consistently  plural- 
ized  in  hC®;  all  the  other  texts  are  inconsistent  in  their  choice  of  number  '1 
22/23  avaiptov  to  which  nothing  corresponds  in  Ii?™  only  in  the  K  recension 

1646  1/2  (ti)  avtwv  not  in  |i?'";  obelized  in  Origen  |  2/3  ov8eva  eixirveovTa 
characteristic  of  the  K  recension  ||  7/9  Origen  (not  followed  by  A0)  adopted 
the  Hebrew  order  '  9/10  On  the  other  hand,  here  only  the  K  texts  deviate 
from  the  Hebrew  order  11  pr)fjui  =  '^'2'l  was  added  only  by  the  K  recension  i 
13/14  Origen,  followed  by  A©,  altered  the  text  to  accord  with  ri^TT   mii 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  27 

K    I64b  10       eiroiricrev   ov  ira-  XI 

pe^j]  ovOev  pT]fia 

UTTO  TraVTCOV  (OV 

crvv€Ta^ev  avTCO 

15   Bei/  i?  TTuaav  ttjv 

yrjv  Tr]<;  optvr]<i' 

Kai   iraaav  T-qv   yr] 

vaye^^-   kul  iraad 

TTjV  yrjv  €V  T(0  vo- 
20       Tft)  •  Kai  iraaav  ri] 


^5L      10  ov  Kr]  prm  et  ^  \    11   ovOev  Ks]  ovSe  tv  to       13   awera^ev  Krs] 
crwcTa^e  O      ai'Tw  Kr]   illis  3!-      14  iJ.wvar]<;  Ks   IL]   iJ.wari<;  ro      •^   Kr  |   16   Trj^ 
opLVT]?  Ivro]  TT/s  opeiVT]';  s:  rrjv  opuvqv  ^      IS  vaye/?  Kro]  vaye^  s:  ev  aye/8  ?!. 
18/20  Kttt — voTU)  Kro]>S  3L  |  19  vo-  Kr]  vw-  o     'lO-Traaav  Ks  3L]>ro  j  21  yo^ofx 

•^Vf  i  11  -p£/3r?]  +  Is  iz  j  14  ^  ul  IS  i'aye(3]  prm  Tr}v  viz  iraaav]  >  Z  | 
19  ev]  prm  t-qv  UF  ;  20  iraaav  ]  >  z      20  21  rrjv  yqv]  >  z  |  21   yo^o/i.]   yoaofx 

L-qaoL  BA  '  9/10   Is  ouTws     e-Tronjaev]-^ omn        11    pT;/Aa]>omn    |     13 

avvtra^ev  B  rell]  everetAaro  h  13/14  uvru)  jxoivarj^  Bh(£Aj  ks  tcu  fjnovarj  (/JLwarj 
G)  A®GS>  I  14^  BhA0G  15  Trao-av  J  prm  Tr,v  A  et  sub  •:>(•  GS  I  t77v]>AS  ] 
16  yyjv]  +  TavTr]V  A  et  Sub  -^jC*  GS  j  ttjs  op(e)Lvr]'i  h]  ttjv  opuviqv  B  rell  17 
Trao-av]  prm  t7?v  AS  et  sub  v^-  G  tt;v]>AS  1  yj^V]  beA0AG]>BS  :  + 
T-qv  A      IS  vaye^  hA0j    aSe/3   BC  :    veye/3  AG(S)     [     lS/20     Kat  —  votw    h] 


rrr  -  rii^  1^";  whereas  <5  (B  texts,  K  texts)  read  -"1"-  imii  15  On  ttjv 
see  above  on  161o,  4-6  16  Ta^'r77v  =  ^^^T^  added  by  Origen  sub  ast  ' 
<§  probably  wrote  r-qv  opeivrjv;  see  above  (ibid.)  '  17  as  line  15  y-qv  properly 
omitted  in  B;  it  is  simply  a  faulty  repetition  of  T-qv  I  18  The  corruptions  of 
mye^  admit  of  easy  explanation:  in  B(&,  the  initial  v  dropped  out  by  hap- 
lography  (after  rrjv  iyrjv)),  just  as  in  3L  after  ev  (its  text  therefore  read  ev  vaye/8, 
comp.  ev  TO)  voroi);  the  change  of  y  into  S  (B<Cj  is  due  to  an  intermediate  t 
(comp.  h  166a,  19/20);  on  the  other  hand,  the  interchange  of  6  and  /3 
(through  the  medium  of  ^) — comp.  vaye^  s — is  an  error  of  sound  which  may 
be  paralleled  elsewhere,  comp.  165o,  1.  3  x^^P^fi  ^'^  for  x^^epeO.  Observe 
veye/8  AG  a  more  modern  pronunciation  than  vaytft  (also  A0j  18/20  The 
parallel  rendering  of  z:.:ri  br  P^<^  in  the  K  texts  (all  but  sllj  and  h  is 
derived  from  a'  a'  (see  5");  see  above  on  161o,  4-6    20  The  omission  of 


28  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    164b  yijv  yo^OfJL^  Kat  ira-  XI 

aav  Ti]v  77; y  /3e^- 
aajx' '   Kai  rrji/  ire- 

8lV7]V'     KUL   T1]V 

25        7r/309  Sv(r/jLat<i'   Kai 
165a  afi/xcov   ^Kai  apa-  3  XII 

/3a'   €0)9  TTjf;  6a- 


K]  yolov  r:  yo{o)v  o:  yoa-ojx  s:  gesuni  51  |  21/23  Kat — ^tOaafx  Kr]>II  j  21/22 

TTao-av  Kro]>S  j  22/23  (itdaafi.  K]  jStTcrav  r  :  ^er^wav  O  :  ye^crai/  S  [  25  8i;o-/Aats 
Ks]  8vaiMi<;  ro 
kIL  165a     1-14  afjifiwv — ^ao-ya]>S  |  1  afx/xtDv  K]  a/x,/xav  ro  iL  i  4  Kara  K]  kut 

Tjfi    :    yocrw/x    Z    |    21/22    iraaav    rrjv    yrjv    ]    >    iz    |    jSedaafji]     ^eOaav    uiz  : 
fiaidaav  f  |  25  S.  Kat  [to  opos  IrjX]  ]  >  z 
UF  165a      1/2  appajia  i    I    5  rr^s]  >  iz    j    5/6   da\a<T(n)<;]  >  1    |    6  T7?s]  >  iz  | 

>    B   rell    (cf.    S™    Ulcu.Z     jiJ^o    wz])    [    20    7rao-av]>h    I    21   yo^oya]  yo(ro/x 
B    rell    :   yoo-ov    G(^l.^  S)    j    21/23  Kat  —  ySe^cra/i.   h]  >  B    rell    |    ySe^cra/x  ] 
fieOaav  h  |  25  Sucr/xais]  Sucr/xas  ll 
BChAQAGS  165a     1/2  apajia  ]  prin  7]  AG  !  3  x^^^P^^  BhA]  x^eweptO  A©G  :  x^v^P^l^ 

iraaav  appears  to  be  nothing  recensional  (KsiL  have  it  against  ro,  uf  against 
iz,  B  rell  against  h)  jj  21  On  the  variants  of  yoaov  see  above  on  161a,  22/23  || 
21-23  The  K  recension  (all  texts  except  IL)  as  well  as  h  introduces  a  parallel 
rendering  of  ycr«n  V'^li^  52  PU^I ,  that  is  to  say,  in  reality  a  variant  for 
yoaov.  s  has  preserved  the  genuine  reading  yeOaav  which  itself  is  probably 
derived  from  yeo-ai/  (gesum  ?l  would  then  be  a  conflate  of  yecrap.  and  yoa-op.) 

comp.  ^^5>.  As  for  the  interchange  of  y  and  (i,  comp,  yt9r}X  A  12,  6 
(1666,  8)  for  fiS-qX.  The  scribes  naturally  enough  adjusted  the  name  to 
that  of  Beth-sh(e)an 

165a     1-14  The  omission  in  s  is  inclusive  of  the  following  words  which 

precede  (in  the  text  of  r) :   Kat  to  rjixia-v  rq^  yaXaaS  Kat  Tov  ;^et/i,appow  ews  La/3oK 

opLov  vniiv.  In  this  chapter  (compare  the  other  instances  23 — 1656,  7  and 
1656,  23 — 166ff,  9;  in  the  latter  case  the  omission  may  be  accidental,  due  to 
homoioteleuton,  but  it  serves  the  same  purpose)  s  begins  to  manifest  its 
propensity  to  extreme  condensation  to  which  the  geographical  notices  are 
sacrificed;  it  reaches  its  climax  in  chapters  13-21  which  are  not  only 
abbreviated,  but  in  part  re-arranged  in  an  order  suitable  to  this  process  of 
condensation.    As  an  adequate  impression  of  the  procedure  of  this  codex 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  29 

K    165a  Xacrcri]^  ;;^ei'e/3€^'  XII 

Kara  avaroXa^ 
5       Kat  e«»9  TTj<i  6a- 
Xa(Tar]<i  Tr]<;  apa- 
f3a  OaXacra-q'i  rw 
aXfov   airo  avaro- 


ro 

6/7  apa(3a 

Kro]  papa  iL 

7  Ta)>]  K]> 

ro  I  8  aXwv  Kr]  eXwv  o :  nachor  31  | 

it^^ 

:  prm  Kat 

e  1  5/6  daXa<T(Tr}^]>e'^  \  6 

T7;s]>omn 

7  ^aAaoro-iys]  OaXaacra 

cannot  be  obtained  from  the  scattered  variants  in  Parsons'  apparatus,  it  is 
advisable  to  present  here  the  aspect  in  toto.     13  ^  Kat  is  Trpecr/^vrepos  irpo- 

f3e/3r]KO}'s  rjfJ.€pwv  •  Kat  enrev  ks  irpos  tv  ■  lSov  yeyr^paKas  crv  ■  Kat  r]  yrj  vrroXeXuTTTaL 
ttoXXt]  €ts  K\rfpovo/xtav  ttoXXt]  crt^oSpa  •  aA.A.a  StaSos  avrrjv  rats  (^vXiwi  Tov  IrjX 
ets  KXrjpovofxiav  •  ov  Tpoirov  eveTeiXafjirjv  (rot  •  '^  Kat  8t€p,eptcrei'  ts  rijv  y^jv  ravT-qv  ev 
KXyjpovofxia  rats  evvea  <^uAats  •  Kat  tw  77p,tcret  </)dA7/s  fxawacrcrr]  airo  rov  lopSavov  • 
ews  Tv/s  daXaacrrji  tt}^  fX€yaXiq<;  Kara  SvcrpMS  r]X.LOv  eSwKev  avrrjV  -q  Oakaacra  -q 
p^iyaXr]  optet  ■  14  ^eowKC  yap  fiwvcrrj?  rats  8uo  cf>vXai<;  Kat  tw  rifJua-u  (f>vXr)^ 
fxavaaarj  awo  tov  Trs.par  tov  lopSavov  Kat  13  '^rr/  <fivXrj  XtvL  •  ovk  eSoJKe  [xoivar]? 
KXripovopLiav  •  k^  o  0<i  IrjX  avros  KXrjpovo/xva.  avTwv  ■  KaBw^  eXaXrjcrev  avrots  • 
14  ^ort  r^trav  ot  vtot  iwcrrjcfy  p.avaa(rr}  Kat  e</>patp,  8uo  <f)vXai-  kul  ovk  cSoOt]  /xepis 
€v  T7).  yrj  TOis  vtots  XevL  •  a\X  r]  TroAets  KarotKetv  ■  Kat  ra  ae^wptcr/teva  af  rats  " 
Kat  TOts  KTrjveaiv  avTtov  ■  ^  ov  Tpoirov  everetAaTO  ks  toj  pnnvcnq  •  otjtojs  tiroiiqaev 
ts  o  Tou  rav77  ■  Kat  eXea^ap  o  tepeis '  Kat  ot  ap^i^ovres  t(dv  Trpiwv  Ton'  <f)vXo)v  vlmv 
lr)\-  -  KUTa  Kkrjpov^  (.KX-qpovofx-qcrav  rai^  tvvta  </)i'Aats  •  Kat  tw  ry/xtcret  (f)vXr]<;  ^utto 
TOV  Tvepav  tov  topBavov  *  Kat  €p,epto-avro  rr^v  yr;!/ -^"^^  18  ^  Kat  e^eKKkrjaiaadr)  Tracra 
o-i'i'ayajy77  vtojv  t?^A  £ts  (rrjXMp,  •  Kat  eTrrj^ev  CKet  tt^v  (XKrjvrjV  tov  fxapTvpLOv  •  Kat  77 
yv;  €KpaTr]Bq  vtt  avTwv  ■  15  Kat  KaT^Kkrjpovofxrjcrav  vioi  lOvSa  Tracras  ras  TroAets 
auTojv  •  Kat  ras  KWfjui^  avTwv  ■  kcitu  ra  opta  avToiv  ■  Kara  Brjixovs  avTwv  ep^epicravTO 
T-qv  y-qv  16  ojo-aurws  Kat  ot  I'tot  uocrqcf>  ec^patp,  Kat  pxivaaa-q  ■  Kara  S-qp-ov; 
avTojv  •  KaTep.€piaavTO  irao"as  ras  TroAets  avTwv  "  Kat  ras  ku>/mx<;  avTwv  •  Kara 
ra  opta  avTuiv  17  ^Kat  rw  o-aATraa8  vto)  oc^ep  •  ovk  -qcrav  avTOi  vlol'  akk  -q 
^T'yarepes  •  **  Kat  tfTTiqcTav  evojTTtoj/  eAea^ap  rop  tepews "  Kat  evavriov  iv  viov 
vav-q  •  KUL  evavTLOV  rwv  ap^i^ovroiv  Aeyouo-at  •  o  ^s  everetAaro  8ta  ;!(etpos  p-wvar)  • 
Bovvai  7]p.LV  Kkrjpovop.iav  ev  p.t(T(D  rwv  a8eA</>wv  t^/aojv  •  Kat  eSoOr)  uvrais  Kkrjpo^ 
8ta  Trpoo-rayp,aTos  kv  •  ev  rots  a8eA(^ots  aurtuv  •  ^r;  8e  y?;  yaAaaS  '^eytv-qdrj 
rots    v'tots    pxivaaar]    rots    KaraAeAetp.p.erots  •      18  -"^  (as   far   as   8teAetv    avrrjvj 

8-lOa.  11     1  n  1-  10a.  17«.  24.  32.  40  \     ■      S  "-  ?■ 

iy  Kat  €KAr)poooTr]arcv  aurovs   ts   Kara  07/p,ovs  avrwv  •    Kara 


30  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    165a  \(ov  oBou  Trjv  XII 

10       Kara  eKjxoiOa' 

UTTO  Oaifxav   Kai 

OTTO    VOTOV  VTTO   a- 

arjScod'  TTjV  Ka- 

10  CKfiwOa  Kr]  CKfjLwd  H  :  eK/Juada  O  !  11  airo  Kro]  vtto  1L  |  6aLfJM.v  K]  6efmv  roil 
I  11/12  Ktti — VOTOV  Kro]>  3L  j  12  votov  Kr]  i/wtou  o   1    12/13  axrrjSaiO  KrlL] 

10  eK/xwda  ]  KeSfxoid  \  11  datfmv  Itfz]  ^e/iav  upi  |  14  (fxLcrya  ]  afftaya  iz  ]  15  top] 

G:  daXaaaav  B  rell  |  9  rrjv  B  rell]  rjvh*  {riqv  h^,  r  superscr)  1  10  Kara  CK/xw^a] 
Kara  aaeifioid  B:  kut  acn/xoyd  A:  Kara  laLfiwd  h*(KaTa  ^idcnfxoid  h-)0  :  Kara 
^rjOaa-LfjLwO  A  :  Kara  firid(j<.LfJiU)6  G:  Kara  firjOaa-ifJiOiv  S  |11  otto]  vtto  A0  :  prm 
Kttt  AGS  ;  11/12  Kai  ttTTo  vorov]  Kaiairo  votwv  h  ( =  tr' S™) : > rell  |  12  vtto]  prm 
Triv  omn  \   12/13  aa-qSwO  A0]  ?2|-a.1  S  :  /jLeaiSwd  A  :  fji.r](Tr]B(j)0  G  :  ix-qhuiO  B(£: 

ra  opta  avrtov  ■  Tracras  ras  ttoAcis  aurcov  ■  Kat  Tracras  ra?  kw/lius  aurwv  •  ''^  Kai 
tTTopevdrjaav  cfi/SaTrjaai  rrjv  yrjv  ■  Kara  ra  opta  aurwv  •  *^''  *'  (with  hav,  keaefi, 
Xe(T£/xSav)-*'«  20-21  '-^"  *'  '^^''  *-  '*"««-''  «-*^  '"-••".  By  means  of  this  singular 
condensation,  the  scribe  saved  himself  the  work  of  reproducing  the 
troublesome  geographical  notices  and  hsts  of  place  names.  Whether  we 
are  dealing  here  with  a  recension,  it  is  difficult  to  tell.  So  far  as  the  prin- 
ciple of  condensation  goes  and  especially  the  turning  of  the  imperative  13 : 7 
into  an  aorist,  Gaster's  Samaritan  Joshua  presents  a  certain  analogy.  I 
beheve,  however,  that  the  scribe  of  s  had  before  him  a  Greek  text  which  he 
manipulated  to  suit  his  own  bent  of  mhid  1  afx/jxiv  ro?L  modernizes  the 
name;  but  K  shows  that  the  archetj^pe  read  correctly  afjLfxwv  Origen  in- 
serted 7)  to  express  the  Hebrew  article  (n)  3  For  an  explanation  of  the  j3 
in  ■)(€v(.pt(i  <£f''  see  above  on  1646,  18.  All  texts  express  n"""  for  mil"  • 
The  double  v  is,  of  course,  correct  -  6  rr;s  characteristic  of  the  K  texts,  but 
omitted  again  in  iz  !i  6^7  pa/?a  IL  see  on  1616,  18  7  ^oAao-o-a  or  ^aAao-o-av 
loose  construction;  it  is  corrected  in  the  K  texts  8  va-)^wp  IL  admits  of  an 
explanation:  the  initial  v  is  dittographed  after  rwv;  x  i^  ^^  error  for  A 
(a  notable  example  of  this  interchange  underlies  the  "seven  rivers"  of  <£''' 

16:3=,    not    CTrra    TTOTUfjiOi    Dillmann,    but    eirra    x^Lix[appoL]  =  eTTTaXu/J.    for 

aTTTakcLfi  B;  <5,  of  course,  wrote  laTrAaret  (comp.  TrraAt/i,  C  after  opia;  hence 
lairroA-ctp.  preceded  the  reading  u.7rTa\afi.)  =  'dbZ'  ',  the  Palestinian  texts 
vary  between  u<f>aK6L  (A0),  read  i£<^Au^i,  hence  nearly  with  the  same  vowels 
as  B,  but  in  accordance  with  the  later  pronunciation  £  is  expressed  by  <^ 
which  perhaps  induced  the  substitution  of  ^for  r,  and  ie0A.7;ra  =  -'Cib£"  M""); 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  31 

K    165a  ra  ^acrya-   * Kai  4  XII 

15  Opiov  wp'  ^aaiXe- 

ft)9  ^aaav    o?  Kare- 
Xeicpdi]  €K  TCOV 
pa(f)aeiv   o  kutoi- 

aaiSoiO  o  I  13/14  rrjv  Kara  Kro]>lt  |  14  •[  r  |  14/17  Kai — KaTeXeiffyOr]  Kro  ]  kul 
Tov  toy  (3a(rtXea  (3a(ruv  o?  KureAcK^^r;  S :  kul  coy  jSacrtXcvi  ^acrav  KaTe\€L<f)dr}  iL  | 
15  wp  K]  wy  r3L  I  15/16  ySacriAews  Kr]  jSaaLXei  O  [  17  -Xu(ji6-q  Ks]  Xtcfidr}  r: 
-Xr]<pOr]  O    I    18  pa^auv  K5t]  pa(f>av  ro:  yiyavTwv  S    |    20  eS/aaetv  Ks]  eSpatv  r: 

wy  I  18    pa<f>a€iv   ]    yiyavTtov  [18/19    o    KarotKtov]    09    KarwKet  ]  20    eSpaifi   u] 

/xrySwy  h  |  13/14  Tryv  KaTa]>omn  |  14  <^a(rya]  prm  Kat  <£  '  1[  BllA©  14-1656, 
17  Kat  —  fjiavaa(Tr)]>h  15  opiov  S"]  opta  A  et  sub  v^-  G  :  >BS  rell  toy 
omn  [  15  /3ao-tA€tos  AG  (=  01  y'  sec  S"")  ]  fSaa-tXedw;  G  :  I3acn\€v<i  B  rell  i  16 
yStttrav]  (3aaa  B  [  os  (i!JAG5]>B  rell  i  16/17  KaTeX€i(f)dr}]  vTrtXecffiOri  (vTroXiffiOr) 
G)  omn      18  pacftaeiv  {  —  (t'  sec  S™  >c-»j^S)  ]  yiyavTtov  Omn  j   19  acrrapuiO  B  rell] 

the  final  p  stands  for  v,  exactly  as  17:11  /xayeSScop  A  stands  for  puayShmv, 
and  conversely  12,  23a  tXhiap.  B  is  corrupted  from  e^oip  (comp.  evStov  h  and 
eScop  e)  II  10  ni-w'Ti   ri"n  is  faithfully  reproduced  in  GAS  ( f3r)0aa€i/xw6  A, 

l3r]dacrLfjMv  =  /3r]9aaLiJ.(L  =  I3r]6aaiij.w6  &.  /3r]6(TeLfJ.o>6  G)  COmp.   also   jiiOcnfJUiiO  h^ 

=  ^rjOatiMwO) :  in  the  B  and  K  texts  n"3  is  wanting,  either  originally,  or 
through  haplography  after  Kara  (the  element  is  universally  extant  in  the 
parallel  passage  13:20).  As  for  the  second  part  corresponding  to  r\T2  -TI , 
the  readings  of  the  B  texts  and  of  A®  are  tolerabl}^  correct;  not  so  those  of 
the  K  texts  which  vary  between  ckimmO  (thus  apparently  the  archetype  read 
with  li)  and  Ke8fj.o}6  uf.  kcS-  may  represent  a  miswritten  I3ed-;  but  ek- 
remains  a  puzzle;  contrast  13:20  11  vtto  A©  is  an  error  for  aTro.  Kai  of 
Origen  =  'i  l^"*  11/12  KrouF  and  h  introduce  a  doublet  which,  according 
to  S™,  comes  from  a-'  I  12  rrjv  which  the  K  texts  excise  treats  '131  mn  as 
an  imphed  relative  clause  I  12/13  The  correct  aayjhoiO  in  the  K  texts  and  in 
A©;  firjSwd  B  {fjir)8wv  h  =  fjir]8(I)  =  ixr]8ii)0)  comp.  vs.  8  A  which  it  is  not  easy  to 
account  for;  a  conflation  of  the  two  readings  underlies  /xrjo-rjBwd  (/xecriSto^) 
GA;  on  50,^1  S  see  above  on  161fl,  6;  note  that  in  13:20  G  reads  aaSo)  jj 
13/14  Tr)v  Kara  the  K  texts  (except  5L)  14  ff.  The  omission  in  h  apparently 
due  to  homoioteleuton  15  The  word  blZI*  which  is  represented  both  in 
the  K  recension  (not  11)  and  in  Origen  (not  &^)  was  wanting  in  ?^s;  <S 
accordingly  took  J^"  as  subject  and  □"J^S'^n  "Tl"-  as  predicate,  a  sort  of 
circumstantial  clause;  Origen,  even  though,  according  to  some  copies  (*'), 


32  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    165a  Kwv  ev  aarapooO^  XII 

20       Kai  ev  ehpaeiv 

'ap^cov  airo  opov;  5 

aepp-cov   KUL  airo 
aeXKa  •   kul  iraarj'i 
Ti-I<;  Kara  ^acrav 


edrain  IL  :  aSpatv  O  \  21  apx^v  Kro]  apxov  S  \  airo  Kr]  em  IL  1  opovsKR]  opiov 
IL  I  22  acpjxwv  Ks]  Bcpfxwv  ro :  ep/^wv  ?L  i  22/23  Kai  a-n-o  o-eAKfx  K]  KUL  airo  aeXxu 

[[(TcXx*^'  s]]  r:  ei  /osf/o  (cum  s  inscr.)  IL  |  23-1656,  7  mt-  €o-e/3wv]>s  ,  23 
TTttO-ets  O  I  24  Kara  fiaaav  Kr]  KarajSacrccos  O :  /Saaav  IL 


eSpaiv  IptF  !  23  creA/<a  ]  (r€A;(a  |  24  Kara]  >  UF 


aaOapoiO  G  j  20  eSpaeiv  B  rell]  eSpaet  G  :  aSpat  A  :  eveSpaeiv  €  !  22  aep/xwv] 
^-li:,.-  S  22/23  airo  aeXKa  Kai]>G  aeXKa]  aeXx"-  ^^  '■  ao-eXxa  A  :  crepxa  ®: 
acKxaL  B<e      23/24  TTuo-rj?  rr/?]   Tracrav  (aTracrav  G)  rrjv  Omn  j  23  11  A  |  24  Kara] 

>omn 


he  left  the  current  text  intact,  at  least  introduced  a  relative,  which,  of 
course,  became  a  necessity  in  the  K  recension  as  well  as  in  GA;  the  intro- 
duction of  the  relative  should,  wheresoever  blZj  had  been  ignored,  have 
necessitated  placing  *,'-"-  "^  the  accusative  (comp.  vs.  2);  this  was  actually 
done  by  s,  but  a  trace  thereof  remains  also  in  G,  the  scribe  at  first  starting 
to  write  the  accusative  and  then  correcting  himself;  the  texts  incorporating 
optov  or  opia  naturally  wrote  the  genitive;  the  latter,  according  to  <S''",  was 
found  in  the  three;  hence  it  is  from  them  also  that  the  noun  determined  by 
it  came  i\  16/17  KaTtXu^Br)  is  pecuhar  to  the  K  texts  |j  18  pacf)aeiv  of  KroU 
was  written,  according  to  S™,  by  a'.    Observe  the  misspelling  common  to 
ro  which  is  not  shared  by  the  uncial  (or  IL) .     Hence  in  such  matters  the 
agreement  of  ro  is  no  guarantee  of  correctness  f  19  ao-rapo)^  with  t  is 
apparently  the  older  method   of   transliteration;    comp.  the  much  older 
aarapTT]  where  the  second  r  is  treated  like  the  first;  G  modernizes  |1  20  <S 
in  all  likelihood  wrote  tSpuei,-  a  supposed  stroke  of  abbreviation  over  the 
final  letter  caused  the  pluralization  at  the  hand  of  later  scribes,     e  is  better 
attested  than  u.     In  tlie  Greek  underlying  (ft  «/  was  dittographed  ji  21  All 
texts  ignore  1  %}'"  I  The  nominative  was  suffered  to  stand  by  s;  by  attrac- 
tion to  the  relative  clause  I  aTro  is  probably  an  old  error  for  ein  (IL;  !L  omits 
the  second  airo) ;  while  the  K  recension  consistently  carries  on  the  genitive 
construction,   the  other   texts  continue  11.   23/24  with    the  accusative  !1 
22  Another  instance  where  ro  share  an  error;  the  archetype  was  certainly 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  33 


K    1656  eft)?  T(ov  I  opiQ)v^  XII 

rcov  yep  ^jeai  /cat] 
Tov  /u-a^l  aOi  Kal^ 
Tt]<i  i'ax[t  fcai  Tou] 
5       ri/jLiaovi  ^jaXaaS^ 
opiou  ai]\a>u  ySacri-] 

1656     2  Twv  Ko]>r  |  yep'^yeo-t]  Kro]  yapyaai,  H  |  3   fjua-^adi  Kr]  fxa)(a6r)  O: 

niachit  3L  |  3/4   Kat  tt^s  va^'tj  Kro]>1l  [  4  xat  Kro]>lL  |  4/5  [tov  rjfXLa-ovi 

1656      1  T0Ji']>UF  j  2  Tcov]>Z  I  yepyecrtv  UF  |  3  iJia)(a6t]  /xaA^a^i  1  |  4  i'a;^t] 

1656  1  Ta)v]>omn  |  2  Ta)v]>omn  j  yepfyeo-t]  =  yepyeo-et  Bat]  yeaovpt  A®: 
ytaovpf.  A  :  yeao-oijpe  G  :  il.*-^.  S  j  3,  4  tov  sive  rr^s]  ttji']  omn  j  3  p,a;>^[a^i]  = 
/xa;)(u^(e)i    AG   :   ^nSSi?   S  :   /juxo-tl    A©  :   iJxi)(aT    C  :   p,tt;(€t    B  j  3/4    Kai    rr;? 

i/u;^i]>omn  I  4/5  tod  7;/xtcroi)s]  to  rj/Mcrv  omil  |  6  optoD  <£]  optwv  B  rell  :  prm 

an  uncial  Ij  22/23  The  omission  in  G  due  apparently  to  homoioteleuton  !! 
23  o-eA/ca  might  be  original  with  its  k,  but  it  is  confined  to  K;  in  0,  A 
became  p  through  mishearing  (similarity  of  sound) ;  aeKxm  B<t  goes  back  to 
o-txx^i-  iind  that  to  o-eAxfu  (another  instance  of  the  interchange  of  A  and  x) ; 
we  may  even  go  further  and  say  that  <&  wrote  o-eAxa  (comp.  13:11  a^a  B 
after  £ws  =  creAxa),  the  t  was  joined  to  a  by  reason  of  the  following  Ka: ;  fosga 
IL  (with  inserted  s)  =  c^aya  (with  spirantic  y,  hence)  =  </)ttxa  =  ^axxo- =  </>aA.xa 

=  ^aAx"- =  eaAxtt  =  o-aAxu  (in  13:11,  however,  IL  has  eo-xa  r.  o-eAxa)  Ij  24   Kara 

pecuhar  to  Kro 

1656  2  "iVr"i  yeo-oDpet  (or  ytcrcrovpu,  with  a  dittographed,  or  with 
inner-Greek  doubhng,  or  with  inorganic  Semitic  doubUng,  comp.  riiiib , 
,—4^ ,  )_*J  ,  fi(.<j<jta<i,  etc.)  was  written  by  Origen  (here  GA  have  faultily  e 
at  the  end)  and  adopted  by  A0  (13:2  ©^  placed  p  over  the  word  apparently 
as  a  reminder  of  the  other  reading)  here  and  13:2.  11.  13a  (136  G  reads 
correctly  yeo-o-oDp  =  "i^;^"3  1?™);  the  kolvt)  readings  oscillate  between  yepyeo-t 
(yapyaai) — SO  here  all  (yepyeo-tv  UF  originated  in  the  same  way  as  eSputv  out 
of  eSpat,  see  above  165a,  20),  and  13:2.  11  the  r  texts  (including  IL  in  vs.  2, 
but  yea-rjpL  in  VS.  11) — and  yeo-(o-)etpet  (with  itacistic  variations;  also  yao-ipt), 
the  former  by  confusion  with  "i:P3  (comp.  Euseb.:  uvty]  8e  co-ti  yapyao-ei), 
the  latter  =  ""^-'^rii  !i  3,  4  The  genitive  of  the  K  texts  expresses  the  sense  of 
ll?-"  correctly  (observe  the  ^  with  "rij3:7^ri1),  or  in  consistency  with  the 
construction  above  165a,  23;  at  all  events  ®  placed  a  stop  after  """iVw:!  and 
took  "nD>"jri''i  over  to  the  following  which  together  the  translator  made 


34  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1656  \em  eae  [^cov:]  XII 

0  TTUfi  lev  [/cat  ot] 
10       viOL  IrjX'  e[7raTa^e] 

avTOV^-   /cTateSct)-] 

/cey  auTr?^!'  />tft)-j 

var}<;  ev  [/cXr^pco] 

Tft)  (0OU/87;[v  kul] 
15       Tft)  7aS'  /cTat  Tcol 

rj/xiav  (f)^vXr}<;^ 

/jiavacrar][:    ' /catl  7 

OuTOi  oi  /3[ao-tXet9l 

Tcoi'  a/jL^oppaicov^ 

Kro]  TO  rjfjuav  It  I  5  yaXaaS  Kr?i.]  yaAaS  O  |  6  opiov  Kro]  optwv  It  |  o-r/^wv]  Kr 
IL]  (Tiwv  o  !  7  ea£[fioiv]  K3L]  co-cre^wv  ro  |  8  1[]>r  |  tovtous  Kr]>^  |  fjnaa-rj's 
ro  I  9  ot  K]>0  I  10  c[7raTaie]  Kr]  eirraiav  OS  |  11/12  eStoKC  o  '  12/13  fj.uiarj'i 
ro  I  14  Toj  Kro]  rots  viois  ^  :  >s  [  16  rjfjuav  Ko]  rjfjivcn  r:  rjfjiuaeL  s  |  17 
fjXLvaaarj  Kl'o]  ixawatra-q  S^  j  \  r  1  19  afjiwpaKDv  S  |  20  avT^Aev  O  j  21   oi]>o  | 

va^^i  U  :  avva^^di  f  :  o-wtt;^t  Z  :  uva^Orj  i  |  8  ^]]>ul  |  9  o  Trat?  ki;]>Z  |  oi]>i  | 
10  CTraTa^aj/ UF  I  11  uvrovsj^z  [  12/13 /aidvcttj?  ei'KAi7pa>]^z    lA  pov/3{€)tfi 

cws  A  et  sub  v^c  GS  |  criwv  G  (^=-*»^»  S)  j  7  -Aews  B  rell]  w  sup  ras  A*'' 
(-AcDS  A*'°''*)  1  8  Toi)rous]>omn  |  yawo-Tjs  G  |  10  e-n-aTu^av  omn  I  12/13  fxwarr)<; 
G  :  +  o  Trais  Kv  A  et  sub  -x-  GS  j  13  KXijpw  A®]  KX-qpovo/xia  B  rell  '  14  rw] 
>omn  I  pov/3r]X  (St&  j  15   tco   l°]>omn  i  16   rjfjuav  G]  TjfXLaei  B  rell  i  17  ^ 

dependent  on  h'Z'2  under  the  force  of  the  Q  in  the  first  half  of  the  verse  || 
T^-"'!  fJuix('^${e)L  or  fuixaTt,  the  latter  in  the  B  texts  and  It  in  ch.  13,  and 
in  A©  here  (but  machit  3L  is  apparently  corrupt,  possibly  a  conflate;  see 
further  on) ;  here  B  (but  not  (£)  reads  /taxet  which  I  take  to  be  a  corruption 
from  pxixOl=  T\Z^'2  •  This  B  reading  is  introduced  in  the  K  texts  (except 
3L ;  unless  machit  is  a  conflate  of  niachati  and  machi)  as  a  parallel  (doublet) ; 
further  below  (22/23)  where  the  clause  is  repeated  (perhaps  from  the  margin 
of  the  archetype;  then  inserted  in  the  wrong  place  as  so  often  with  marginal 
notes)  the  spelling  is  vaxoi  in  Kr,  /xu;(aj  in  IL,  vaOi  in  iz,  but  i/a^^t  uf  exactly 
as  is  read  in  u  here) ;  of  course,  v  stands  for  p.  !j  6  Note  how  the  manuscripts 
divide  in  an  arbitrary  fashion  on  the  question  of  number  '  ews  A  and  sub  ast 
GS  (so  Lagarde's  codex;    there  is  no  reason  why  the  obelus  should  be 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  35 

K    1656  20       ov<;  av€i[\€v  l^  ]  XII 

KUL   01   VLoll  ir^X   €  1 

TO)  7repa\v  rov  t-l 
ophavov  [/cat  T779I 
va-^^of   K^ai  Tovl 
166a  [r]fjnao]v'i  yaXaaB 

\^7rapa  Oa^Xaaaav 
[aTTO  ^a^aXyaB  ev 
[t&)  TrelStft)  Tov 
5        [XtySaz^Jof   Kai  ecu? 


23-166fl,  9  Ktti-  etpa]>s  1  23  ttjs  Kro]  ev  IL  j  24  vaxoi  Kr]  yax>;  o:  macho  H  | 
24  — 

166a     1  TOV  r]/xiaov<;]  to  -qfjuav  IL  [  1  rjixvaovi  o     2  TrapaOaXaaatos  O  \  3  airo 
(SaaXyaS  Kro]  balladon  IL     5  KatK3L]>ro  I  7  [xeA>x  I^o]  c/icZgra  IL     8/9  o-?/- 

Upz  :  povfSiv  Itfi  '  Kai]>Z  '  12  ^  r  22  rov]>Z  '  23  rr7?]>f  |  24  vaxoi]  vadi  \Z\ 

vaxOi  rell 

166a    /ScuiXyaS  U^  Itfz]  jSaAyaS  U*  :  yoaAyaS  i  !  4  Tou]>f  ,  6  tou  1°]>UF  | 
BI1A0G  I   19  Twv  afxoppaiwv  BaJ^"^  rell]   T7;s  yi?s  S     20  is  SUp  ras  A*'  (fjuovarj^ 

^*fort)    ,    23  — 

166a      1    -Ktti  —  yttAatt8]>omn  ]  2  ^aAacrcrav]  prm  T7/V  A      3  a7ro]>onill  I 
yQaaAyaS  ©AGS  (r^^i^^)  ]  /?aAya8  A  :   /3a\aya8  €  :   /JaAayaSa  B  :   yaAoaS  h  |  ' 
ev  B  rell]  ews  h^  !  4  tw  A©AGr]>B  ■  4/5  toi;  Xl/Suvov  B«ehA©AG5]  AiySavw 


adopted  with  Maes,  the  word  not  being  found  in  the  Kotv-q  texts),  hence  ?l?" 
must  have  read  ~>" ,  an  error  due  to  the  aberration  of  the  ej-e  to  blZI*  13? 
above  !|  7  K  shows  that  ta-cjiwv  with  one  o-  is  the  correct  spelling.  e=—  || 
8  TovTovi  the  K  texts  (all  except  E)  resumptive  Ij  9  Note  condensation  in  z  !| 
10  The  plural  should  be  restored  also  in  Kr  'i  13  The  second  riin*  "23-" 
only  in  Origen  KXrjpoi  all  the  K  texts  and  A©  is  certainly  to  be  rejected  in 
favor  of  KXiqpovoiJLui  B  rell ;  KX-qpo^  =  5^13 ,  and  K\r]povo/j.La  =  n  iljl"'  11 
14/15  ":n^5^ ,  ^i:< ,  ©  did  not  express  the  gentilic  16  rffitav  is  not  mi's- 
wTitten  for  j^/xto-et;  the  difference  is  grammatical,  see  Helbing,  51  i,  19  '.""^xri 
only  in  S;  all  the  other  texts  express  "T^sn 

166a  3  aTTO  was  wanting  in  (S;  apparently  "2  was  missing  in  I&k;  for  the 
translator's  exegesis  comp.  note  on  1616,  24/25  Restore  /SoaAyaS  every- 
where; yaAaaS  li  (comp.  youAyaS  i)  for  ^aXaaS,  see  above  on  1646,  21/23; 

)SaAAaStov   3L   is  gen.  plur.   of  /SaXXaSa,   comp.   ySuAayuSa  B  =  ;SaaAyaS      5   Kai 


36 


The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 


K    166a 


10 


15 


Tov  op^ov^  rov 
■X^eX ]  €')(' '   ava^ai- 
vovT^wv  ei<i  arj- 
etpa'l    Kai  eSooKe 
avTrj]v  Is  Tat9  (f)v- 
Xai9  ZI77X'  K\r]po- 
vofieUv  Kara 
KXr]p^ov  avrcov 
^ev  TO)]  opi'   Kai  €v 
TOO  TrelStw   Kat 
ev  ap^a^w   Kai  e 


XIT 


[eipaj  K]  aeeipa  r:  acrjpa  o:  seir  IL  j  9  ■]  r  |  eSwKC  O  !  10  \avTriy  KrlL]  avroLS 
O  1  rots  0  I  11  -Arjs  O  |  11/12  kAi7/)oJ^vo/x€i]v  Kro  iL]  KXrjpoi'O/XLav  S  13  [KXrjp'ov 
Kr  11]  KXr]po)V  s:   KXrjpovofitav  O      14  o/3t  K]  opet  R     15/21  Kai. — 7reSto>]>S  ;  16  [cv] 

7  [x^^J^X  ^^  Ix^^^X  ^P^-  X^'^^/"'  ^-  X'^'^^X  ^  '  ^/^  oretpa  UF  I  11/12  KXr]povop.iav 

B*'"^  6  TOV  1°]>A0  i  TOV  2°  A©AG]>Bh  !  [xeA]ex  ]  x^-^X"  ^  :  x^Aku  h  : 
XaAcK  (s.  x^Xex)  ^''^  •  aXoK  A©AG  :  ■  iiiNs  S>  ]  8/9  ets  (TTjetptt]  €is  creupa  A©G: 
eis  (TTjetp  B(C  :  o-vyetp  h  :  aaaeeupa  A  :  i.*.".ifl.l:^  S  ]  10  avT7]V  hGJA©A]  aurov  BG^S  j 
11/12    KXrjpo[voix€]Lv    Bh]    KXr]povop.tav    rell    j    Kara    [kAtjp]    ov   uvtwv   B    rell] 


which  ro  alone  omit  was  certainly  present  in  the  archet^TDe  of  KrolL  l| 
7  pbrn  Origen  wrote  aaXuK  or  aAaK  (without  the  Hebrew  article)  (hence 

'        T    T      IV 

A©),  read  in  AG  A©  aAaK  for  aXoK,  comp.  11:17  aAaK  A  aaAaK  GA©;  &,  on 
the  other  hand,  wrote  (a)xeAK  or  (a)xeAeK  =  p;:r;(ri),  comp.  a'  /xepi^ovros: 
11:17  axeA  (axaiA)  BiChRUF  "n-ith  final  k  dropped  in  front  of  Kat,  here  x^Akc 
hlL  (!L  with  y  in  the  place  of  k)  and  (with  k  assimilated  to  x)  X^'^X'^  B,  a  in 
either  case  dittographed  (the  next  word  begins  in  a),  x^^^^X  ^^^^  (x^'^^X  ^P* 
with  faulty  doubling,  still  more  corrupt  x^^^H-  ^)}  X^^^X  ^  comp.  x«AeK  <£-'^ 
II  8  acr-  A  =  £s  for  tts;  the  word  is  missing  in  h  |  8/9  While  B(£li1l  comp.  S 
correctly  ignore  the  locative  element  already  rendered  ets,  the  other  texts 
include  n  "  pleonastically  in  the  transhteration ;  r],  of  course,  should  be 

restored  everywhere     10  avT-qv  refers  back  to  'i"n>5ri  ;  avrov  clearly  an  error 

in  spite  of  the  variant  reading  there,  since  the  plural  is  used  for  the  latter 
in  Greek  ]|  11/12  KrolL  go  with  Bh  l|  IB  KXrjpoi'ofxui  o  deviates  from  its 
archetype  and  is  certainly  \\Tong,  even  though  KXrjpov  is  an  inadequate  ren- 
dering of  npbn".  (a'  cr'  8tatpeo-ets)  ;,  16  There  is  room  in  K  for  ev,  though 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  37 

K    166a  \aar]B}(o6^ '   Kai  e  XII 

[tt;  eprj^^fiw   Kai 

I  yoTft)]-   KUL  [ey] 
20        {vaJ€^^'•   Kai  ev  TO) 

[ratov]  Kai  rov  a- 
Ifjioppa^Lov  Kai  TO 
[')^ava^vaiov   Kai 
25        [rov  (fi^epai^eov 
1666  KOI  Tov  I  evaiov'^ 

Kai  TOV  le^ovaai- 


K??L]>ro  I  17  [a(r7?8>(?  K]  ao-q^uiB  r:  ahwO  o:  esehon  H  •  Katl>o  '  18/19  Kai 
\voTw\  Ivro]>?i-  19  vcoTw  O  \  20  [vaye^Ji  K]  nosefe  i.  :  aye/?  o:  ayeu  r  I 
20  21  Kai — n-eSio)  Kro]>i!.  |  21-1666,  4  twv  ;(erratwv '  Kai  tojv  a/jLoppaidtv '  Kai 
Twv  Yavavewv  kul  twv  c^epe^ewv  Kat  rwv  euaiwv  tcov  uf^ovaaLwv  Kai  twv  yepye- 
(ratwv  O  I  25  ^epe^atov  r     24 — 

1666     1  Kai — emiov]>S  ;  3/4  Kat  tov  yepy€o-aiov]>?l      "^  r     OKatKRl>1L  | 


UF  I  18/19  Kai  voT<i)  ]  (yr?  z)  T-q  irpo^  votov  uf  {  20  [vaye]/?  Ipt]  aye/3  ufi: 
vaye^  Z  |  21  TreSiio]  +  Kai  ei'  apa/Sa  kul  ev  acrr]8w6  i  I  21 — 1666,  4  tov  ;(avavaiov 
Kai  TOV  ;(eTTaiov  •  Kai  tov  ap,oppaiov  Kai  tov  Kavavaiov  •  Kai  tov  (fitpet,aiov  kul  tov 
€vaLOv  •  Ktti  TOV  yepyeo-atov  Kai  tov  ie/3oi'craiov  \[tov  x'^^*^^"^'-'^^]^^  Kai  l°-5°]> 
fz  I  Ktti  TOV  yepyeo-aiov  kui  tov  ie/?ot'0-aiov]  >  iz      Kai  6°,  7°]>fj] 


KaTeKkripovofJi-qaa'  avTOv;  <E  '  17  aa-qhwd  B  rell]  p.-q'^wd  A  18/19  Kai  voT<i>  (cf. 
S"  a'  0-'  Ui^:^=)  ]>omn  I  19/20  ev  vaye/3  G  :  ^  -^1  ^  S  (A=19  om  Kai  — 
XeTTaiov.  sed  cf.  108,  veye;8  108.  Compl.) :  evaye;S  A©  :  vaye/3  Be  |  Kai  ev 
vaye/3]  Ka<f)LaTc(3  ll      20/21  Kai  ev  tw  TreSiw  S  Sub  •)jC-]>B  rell 

1666      1,  2  emiov.  ie|8oDO-aiov]-^e     3/4  Kai  tov  yepyeo-aiov]>Oinn     4  tov 


ro  omit  it  17  aarjBwe  See  above  on  16o5r,  12/13  'i  eo-e^wv  iL  an  error 
18/19  Ktti  voToj  from  a'  a'  (according  to  5™)  anticipates  Kai  ev  vaye^,  a 
doublet  peculiar  to  the  K  texts  (all  except  IL)  20  For  the  corruptions  of 
vaye/3  See  above  on  1646,  18.  Ka</>iaTe/3  h  the  three  words  run  together  with 
corruptions  20/21  Kat  ev  tw  TreStto  KroUF  is  found  also  in  S  sub  ast;  either 
repeated  from  above,  hence  i  goes  on  still  further;  or,  which  is  more  likely, 
read  Kat  ev  rrj  TreStvrj  ]^->:'^-°-s  .  see  above  on  1616,  22  '  21  — 

1666    4  UF  deviate  from  the  order  found  in  all  the  others  (which  is  that 
of  1^™)  in  that  they  place  ".yi^  at  the  head  of  the  hst;  nevertheless  it  is 


38  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1666  ov  Kai  TOP  jep-  XII 

yecracov  'Wov  /8a-  9 

5  StXea  lepi^co  kul 
TOP  fSaaiXea  Trj<i 
yaf   7)  eanv  TrXrj- 
aiov  ^aidijX'  ^"kui  10 

7  yai  Kr]  geth  ?l  |  co-tl  S  |  8  (SaiOrjX  Krs]  fiedr]\  0  3L  I  Kai  Kr]>31  I  9  T(x)v  s    I 

1666    4  Tov  z]  prm  km  ufi  j  8  /SedrjX  i  |  10  tov  fSa(TLX€a]>i  |  14  Aaxj?s  u  | 

prm  /cat  Bli  ©  1  post  nomina  oppidorum  A  et  sub  •>(•  G  S  add  eva  |  8  (SaiO-qX] 

repeated  once  more  (in  the  form  of  Kammto?)  in  the  place  which  belongs  to 
it  !|  3/4  KM  TOV  yepyecruiov  peculiar  to  the  K  recension  (all  except  it;  iz, 
however,  excise  also  /cut  tov  ttliovaaiov;  note  the  inverted  order  in  uf); 
comp.  Maes:  "Monet  hie  Syrus  in  nonnuUis  libris  post  tov  teySouo-atov 
adscriptum  fuisse  Kat  tov  yepyaa-aatov,  sed  hoc  in  Hebraeo  non  habetur"  || 
4  /cat  Bhditufi  an  inferior  reading,  induced  by  the  sequel  l|  5  ff .  Origen  alone 
added  sub  ast  eva  after  each  city  name  '\  The  codices  escape  the  tedious 
repetition  of  Kat  tov  fiaaiXta  with  each  new  name  in  a  variety  of  ways;  some 
begin  condensing  the  text  at  an  earlier,  some  at  a  later  stage.  It  is  safe  to 
say  that  these  contractions  do  not  go  back  to  <5.  As  for  B,  its  archetype 
evidently  had  Kat  in  each  instance  (see  below);  moreover,  ^aaiXca  was 
written  compendiously  ^a  (see  below)  !|  10/11  (^aatXea  xe/Spwv  dropped  out 
in  G  through  carelessness;  the  total  was  not  affected,  because  G  erroneously 
treated  x^PI^^^  ^^-  ^^  ^^  ^^^  name  of  a  city  |i  12  3L  alone  reproduces  nT-1^ 
p?"";  all  the  others  presuppose  n^'J"!""  or  ri^"^"!"'  or  (if  ov  stands  for  w) 
ni"-"'''  li  15  "libltj-" ,  introduced  by  Origen  into  his  text  as  eyAwv  (hence  A® 
and  also  uf)  in  the  place  of  the  koivt]  reading  (as  preserved  in  Bh€lL)  atAa^; 
the  latter  apparently  meant  to  Origen  a  hopelessly  corrupt  form  which  he 
could  in  no  wise  admit.  Critically  handled,  atAa/A  is  equivalent  to  auyXa/x 
(the  spirantized  y  omitted;  comp.  17:3  da  1L  and  y  in  eyAa  sup  ras  B  ?) 
=  aiyAav=eyAav.  ^  which  kept  the  KotFr;  form  added  fSaaiXea  gongola; 
whatever  the  y  {g)  may  stand  for,  oyyoAa  is  manifestly  a  corruption  from 
cyyeAa  (comp.  cyyeAa  Compl.  =  nbr»y  Jerem.  31  (78):  34;  corrupted  in  the 

codices  as  ayyeAta(v,  s)  =  eyy£Ad  =  eyyeAav.      S  likewise  adds:   Kai   eyAwyu,,-    but 

in  the  place  of  the  Koivrj  form,  it  reads  with  Kro  o8oAfA)a/x.  Here  reveals 
itself  a  substantial  difference  between  Origen  and  the  recension  embodied  in 
Kr.  a  concordance  of  all  the  passages  in  which  the  name  'S'O'.'J  occurs  in 
Joshua  shows  that,  though  the  three  gave  a  form  corresponding  to  the 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  39 

K    1666  rov  ^aaiXea  IXrjjJi^  XII 

10        Kai  TOP  ^acriXea 

')(^e/3pcL>v   ^^  Kai  TO  11 

^aatkea  lepifiovd^  • 
Kai  rov  jSaaCkea 

Xa^^et?-    ^' Kill  Tov  12 

15        fiaatXea  oSoXafi^ 


10  Kai  KR]>iL  1  TOV  l3a(nXea  Kro1L]>s  !  11  Km  Kn\>lL  '  tov]>VO  \  11/12 
TOV  y8uo-tA.ea]>S  |  12  lepifxovd  Ks]  cpL/xovO  VO:  upfjiOvO  1.  13  kui  Kr]>1L  |  tov] 
>ro      TOV  |SttO-iAea]>S      14  Kat]>»?L  |  Tov]>ro     14/15  tov /SacrtAca]>S  |  15  o8o- 

15  oSoAa/x]  atyXwjU,  UF:   +  Kat  tov  epifxovO  iz  [   16  tov  jSao-iAea]  >  fi  |   17  ya^ep] 

ytd'y]X  A  Kai]>omn  1  9  Tov]>Oinn  I  10  Kat  Tov]>omn  '  10/11  j3acnXea 
;(e^pajv]>G  ,  11  Kat  Tov]>oiiin  upifjiovO]  upip.ov  A  :  uip-qp-ovO  <£  cf.  icirimuth 
Euseb  "'"  !j  13,  14   Kat  rov] >omn  \   15   oSoXafj]   atXa^i  BhtfJ  :  eyAw/x  AG: 


Hebrew  (comp.  for  10:5  a'  o-'  6'  85"  et  sine  nomine  58";  for  vs.  23  a  a', 
for  vss.  34  and  37  a'  S";  read,  of  course,  everywhere  eyAtuv),  Origen  con- 
servatively retained  the  (5  reading  oSoAAu/u,;  that  is  to  say,  if  GS  may  be 
taken  to  represent  the  Hexapla  (or  Tetrapla,  comp.  the  note  in  S  at  the  end 
of  the  book).  A0  naturally  followed  Origen  (in  10:37  there  is  an  omission 
in  0;  comp.  a  similar  omission  in  f).  A  doubt,  however,  may  be  raised  as  to 
what  Origen  really  introduced  in  his  text  on  the  ground  of  the  marginal  note 
in  85  on  10:34  according  to  which  both  o'  and  a'  read  atyAw/x.  This  reading 
is  extant  in  15  (atyAwr).  64.  Aid.  (uyAwv);  and  so  also  in  vss.  5.  23;  while  in 
vs.  3  aiyAco/A  is  found  in  the  text  of  58.  It  may  therefore  be  argued  that  in 
one  form  of  his  recension  (possibly  the  Tetrapla)  Origen  was  emboldened  to 
introduce  the  correction.  Observe  that  in  vs.  33  where  85  vindicates  for  o' 
the  reading  opap.  we  find  wpa/x  (the  better  spelling)  in  64.  Aid.  (comp.  apap. 
58  and  the  still  more  corrupt  reading  ^'in  of  5).  The  entire  subject, 
however,  cannot  be  prosecuted  here  at  length.  So  much  is  certain  that, 
when  Origen  was  forced  to  supply  an  omission,  he  unhesitatingly  took  over 
from  his  source  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  place-name;  so  in  10:36  v^-  avo 
eyXwp.:  GS,  sine  notis  A  (with  the  form  eyAwvin  19.  Compl.).  Whereas  58 
presents  the  doublet  a-n-o  utyAwp,  ohoXXap.,  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in 
he<=gRur  the  addition  reads  avo  o8oAAu/x.  Hence  the  other  recension,  while 
adopting  the  same  plan  as  did  Origen  with  reference  to  supplying  supposi- 
tious lacunae  in  the  current  text,  nevertheless  held  itself  to  the  tenor  of  6, 
a  critical  procedure  which  must  excite  admiration.  A0,  while  accepting 
Origen's  corrections,  do  not  follow  him  in  admitting  asterisked  additions. 


40  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1666  KaL  Tov  ^aaiXea  XII 

ya^ep' '    ^^Kairov  13 

^aaCKea  Sa/Setp' 
Kai  TOV  /SaaiXea 

Xxifi  Ks]  oSoAAa/i.  ro  :  +  kul  eyXw/x  s  :  gongola  il  [  /3ao-tXea]  prm  regem  aelam 

1L  I   16  Kat]> It  I  TOv]>ro      TOV  ^ao-tAea]>3  |  17  Kai]>iL  ]  Tov]>ro  !   17/18  tov 
^ao-iAea]>S     18  Sa^etp  Krs]  Saj3r]p  o     19  K;atJ>l!.     Toi'  yiSao-t Xea] > S     20  y€cr(ret,p 

a^r)p  ufi:   a^ip  Z        18-22   ordo  oppidorum  Klptr]    yeo-etp.    ep/Aa.    apaS.   8a/?tp 

u:  omn  inserunt  /3ai6r]X  post  apaS  \   18   8ay3etp]    SajStp  ulf:    8ta/8tp   ptiz  , 
*^ 

cyAwv  0AS  !  16,  17,  19  KUL  TOv]>omn  |  20  yeo-o-etp]  aaet  B  :   ruet  h  :  gisl  <E  : 

The  K  recenpion  is  thus  true  to  its  canon  in  reading  in  the  present  passage 
oSoAAa/A.  On  the  basis  of  the  kolvt}  reading  and  its  casual  correction  in 
Origan  the  two  names  are  identified  in  58™  on  10:37  :  77  oSoAAap,  AeycTat  ^ai 
atyAap..  There  remains  the  passage  15:39  where  again  the  kolvt]  reading 
seemed  hopelessly  corrupt  to  Origen  who  therefore  introduced  the  Hebrew 
form;  he  was  not  followed  by  the  other  recension.  The  introduction  of 
oSoAAap,  in  12:12  on  the  part  of  the  K  texts  necessitated  its  excision  from 
vs.  15;  naturally  those  texts  which  read  in  the  former  place  atAup.  or  eyAwv 
kept  oSoXXafjL  in  the  latter.  The  total  XXIX  of  6  (BheiL)  remained  un- 
affected in  ro  by  the  addition  of  (iaiOrfX  in  vs.  16  in  accordance  with  1^™. 
In  UF,  the  retention  of  oSoAAap.  by  the  side  of  aiyAwp.  together  with  the 
addition  of  fiaiOqX  and  the  duplication  of  vs.  226  (to  KoSixav  comp.  KOfji/xav 
rolL  is  prefixed  the  Hexaplar  form  uKovajx)  increases  the  number  by  three; 
hence  A/?'  u,  for  which  f  faultily  have  t^'  (comp.,  however,  24:12  all  texts 
except  AS  which  read  livo  with  1i?'"  and  h  which  has  tuenty-ynne!).  Origen 
naturally  counted  XXXI  with  %]"";  though  the  representatives  of  his  recen- 
sion are  not  in  agreement  with  one  another  in  vss.  186.  IQo.  20a,  if  we 
consult  A®  we  may  be  reasonably  certain  that  Origen  wrote  Aeo-apwi'.  /xaSojv, 
ao-wp.  (rap,ptov  /juipwv.  A0  both  count  XXIX,  i.e.  they  reproduce  the  Kotv?; 
reading,  though  A  introduces  a  supernumerarj'  (f>aaya  after  aa/xpan',  and  © 
inserts  (SaiO-qX  and  Xeirapw  (read  Aeo-apw)  and  treats  fmpptL  in  20a  as  a 
separate  locality.  1i?s  apparently  wrote  XXIX;  the  number  was  reduced 
by  the  omission  of  jiaiO-qX  and  the  contraction  of  vs.  18  (where  ?&s  omitted 
the  second  ",b  «  ;  "j1"l'b  was  then  correctly  understood  by  the  translator 
after  the  analogy  of  ^'Z^Zt  226,  -^t;  PS:':  23r;,  b"b;.b— thus  W  read  for 
br^br.b  l^?™ — 236:  ©  wrote  £<^£k  (or  a</>e/<)  ti;;  o-aptov;  the  corruptions  in 
BliClirouF  may  be  readily  explained:  B,  aside  from  the  change  of  e  to  o, 
omitted  one  <t  by  haplography;   in  its  archetype  aapwv  was  written  aapd, 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  41 

K    1666  20       yecraeip'' '   ^*Kai  /Sacri,-  14   XII 

Xea  epfia-   Kat  /Sa- 

aiXea  apaS'' •   ^""^KaL  ySa-  15a 

aiXea  Xop-va-   ^^' Kat  /3a~  16 

aiXea  ixaKi]ha- 

K]  yea€tp  rs:  yearfp  o:  ya^etp  IL  \  Kat]>?l  |  20/21  y8ao-iAea]>s  |  21  epfw.  KrlL] 
epfMiv  ro  I  Kat]>0  3L  |  21/22  ;Sao-tXea]>S  |  22  apaS  Kr]  aapaS  H  |  /<aiJ>rolL  | 
22/23  j8ao-t\€a]>S  I  23  Ao/Ava  K]  X.ofii'a  ro:  Aeyuva  iL  :  +  jSacrtAcu  oSoAAa  3L  I 
Kaij>rolL  I  23/24  |Sa(7iA£a]>s  |  24  pxiKrfia  Krs]  puKiha  o:  taageda  3L 

20  yeo-o-ei/o]  yeo-tp  uiz :  yaLO-rip  f  |  22  apaS]  apaSi  U  ]  23  Xoftva  \  inter  Xo/3va  et 
fjMKrjSa  inserunt  o8oAAa/u,  (oSoAa/x  f) 

yaSep  A0AGS  [  Ka6]>0mn  I  21  cp/Au]  ep/xa^  Bhtit  |  Kai]>omn  I  22  apuS]  atpa^ 
ySacriAea  apa^  B  :  atpae  /3.  apadi  h  :  upa^  €  :  aSep  A® AGS  Kui]>omn  23 
Aop,va]  Aep,vtt  at  :  Xtfiva  B0AGS  :  Ae/3p.va  A  :  +  (8.  ohoXXap.  AGS  :  +  /3. 
o8.  /8.  |8at^77A  ©  I  Kat]>omn  !  24  /xuKTjSa  A0AGS]  T?AaS  B  :  uT^AaS  h  :  r?8ax  Ot 

the  sign  of  abbreviation  was  then  overlooked;  on  the  other  hand,  the  initial 
K  of  the  following  Kai — the  archetype  apparently  read  Kai  fiacnXca — was 
dittographed;  h  has  crap(D$,  as  frequently  with  oj;  in  rouF  the  r  of  rr/s 
became  y,  and  in  ro  the  initial  a  was  lost  through  haplography;  in  both  the 
K  of  a(l>€K  became  y  pronounced  v  before  the  following  y,  hence  the  v  of  uf; 
a(f)€eK(Tappov'i  IL  shows  a  dittographed  t,  ttjs  is  ignored,  p  doubled,  w  rounded 
to  ov,  and  d  (misread  a)  as  in  h);  on  the  other  hand,  the  omission  of  19a 
(llT^  a  mere  variant  of  "."IS^i'^  20a;  see  above  on  161?>,  10)  was  offset  by 
the  breaking  up  of  20a  into  two  (M^  read  "pS^'^  ~^b'2  ]^^'2Z  "p'Z)  [ 
17  UF  stand  with  their  a^r?p  alone  '!  18-22  u  stands  alone  with  its  order  f: 
20  Correct  raet  h  to  yaet  and  that  (comp.  B  and  Ot)  to  yao-ei  =  yao-ctp  comp. 
ya^etp  IL  and  ye(o-)o-etp  K  texts.  In  all  probability,  <&  wrote  ya8rjp  =  ^~ji  for 
113  S?""  reproduced  in  Origen  (and  A©)  'j  21  epp,a^  of  the  B  texts  with 
archaic  fem.  ending  pl^  !l  22  Bh  clearly  represent  a  doublet,  which  is  proved 
not  only  by  the  omission  of  the  first  in  ®,  but  principally  by  the  fact  that 
the  count  of  XXIX  is  not  affected,  atpad  (corrupted  in  h  to  atpae)  =  epa8 
(e  for  — )  and  apa^  (corrupted  in  h  to  apa^t)=apaS  are  clearly  parallels; 
perhaps  the  former  is  genuine  'I  aapaS  IL  with  a  dittographed  after  /SaaiXea  \\ 
aSep  Origen  quite  unUkely,  unless  M^  read  "il  •;  ;  it  may  have  arisen  through 
assimilation  to  yaSep  jl  23  On  Ae^Sva  and  variants  see  above  on  161a,  2  || 
Through  the  insertion  of  ^aiO-qX  in  the  wrong  place,  the  order  in  vss.  15  f  is 
shifted  in  uf.     0,  not  A,  introduces  (SaiOrjk  in  front  of  puK-qSa  [  24  ©  wrote 


42 


The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 


K   167o 


^Kai  TOt<;  rjixtaeai 
(f)v\r]'i  iiavacrarj 
eScoKev  /jLcovarj'i 
ev  Ti]  ^aaav   Kai 
5       T0i9  rj/jit(T€(nv  e- 
ScoKev  (?•   /xera 

TWV  a8€\(f)(OV 

avTcov  ev  rco  ire- 

pav  rov  lophavov 

10       irapa  OdXacrcrav   Kai 


7  XXII 


eU 


IL 


167a       1    f   r    I    tois    rj/JiLcrea-i    Kr]    tw    -qixuru 
viwv  S     fj-avaaa-r)   Krs]    fJMwaa-crr]    o5L      3    cSmkcv    Ks] 


2  (^vXr??  KrolL]  + 
tSoJ/ce  ro  '  ix(ovcrr]<;  Ks 
IL]  fiu)ar)<;  r:  i?  o  |  4  ev  rr?  Kro  31]  ttjv  S  4-6  kul — is  Krs3l]>0  ,  5  rots 
Tjfjiicrecnv  Kxs]  tco  -qyncTU  IL     8-10  ev — 9aXa(T(jav  &s3L]>o      11/12  a:r€o-T€tAev 


ul(p)tF  167o     1-4  Kttt  —  jSa(7av]>F   (sed  (^vXtjs  frnvatrarj  f  SUperscr)        1   r)ixL(Teai 


BffihAeAS  167a     1  1[A0     tois  rj/xLaecrL  ©A]   rots  r)fJ.Lcrei  A  :  tco  rjfXLcreL  B  :  rw  77/u.to-i) 

h  I  3  fjLOivarj'i  B  rell]  Zs  A  ;  4  rr;]  sup  ras  3  circ  litt  A*'  j  ^aauv  <£A05] 
j8ao-av(e)tTt8i  BhA  5  TOts  r]fJ.L(Te(nv  0A]  Tots  -qiMLcrLV  A  :  toj  -qfjiiau  B  :  tw 
r?/xto-v  h  ;  8/9  ev  tw  Trepav  tov  lopSavov  Bb<£0]   irapa  rov  lopSavrjv  A  :    >  AS  | 


yaa/cTjSa^:  fxu  was  lost  after  ^a  (as  ^ao-iAea  was  WTitten  compendiously),  k  was 
lost  through  haplography  in  another  ancestor  which  omitted  ^Sao-tXea  and 
read  in  its  source  k^  (  =  Kai)  K-qSad:  what  remained  became  77X08  (spirantic  8 
in  B)  and,  with  a  of  fiaaiXea  dittographed,  ar/AaS  in  h;  on  the  other  hand, 
r)8a6  was  misread  (^  for  A=8=^)  as  rjSax  in  <£. 

167a  1-4  Omission  through  homoioarcton  or  condensation  in  f  (but 
note  the  trace  in  f  superscr);  a  similar  condensation  in  0  (see  the  variants 
3,  4-6,  8-10)  which  inconsistently  retains  ev  T17  fiaaav  1  The  plural  all 
except  BhlLu;  Tj/xto-et  A  probably  an  error,  comp.  tj/iio-iv  A  in  1.  5  which  is 
certainly  an  error;  hu  refrain  from  dechning;  similarly  1.  5  ![  3  is  A  is  an 
error  as  it  is  in  o,  though  there  the  error  is  coupled  with  condensation  || 
4  Bh  followed  by  A  Grecize  the  name;  the  K  recension  and  Origen  (the 
latter  followed  by  A©)  have  the  Hebrew  form  8-10  The  K  texts  as  well  as 
the  B  recension  present  the  full  Hebrew  text;  there  is.no  reason  to  assume 
that  Origen  had  anything  different;  5  (followed  by  A,  but  not  by  0)  omits 
the  first  part,  A  the  second  (hence  vapa  tov  lopSavryv  for  ev  tw  Trepav  tov 
lophavov)  ,  11/12  The  form  minus  the  e^  is  pecuhar  to  Kjo  !;  12,  13  o  con- 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  43 

K    167a  i-jVLKa  airearei-  XXII 

Xev  avTOvf  t?  ei<i 
TOV<i  oiKOVi  av- 
Tcov   ijvXoyi]- 
15       cr€v  avTOv^  ''Xe-  8 

<ycov   ev  y^prj^a- 


K]  aTreo-TtXev  r :  aTreoretAe  o :  e^aTrcorttAev  s:   dimisit  It  |  12  avTovs  Krs1L]>0 
1  13  otKOvs  KrslL]>o  I  14  r^vAoyr;-  K]  evXoyr]-  R  |  16/17  tv]  CUm  iL     -^pejMKTtv 

Ipt]  r7)U,ton)  U  I  5  rjixicrca-iv  ]  r/jLtio-v  U  ]  10  f  |  11  c^aTreo-TeiXev  ultF  |  14  rjvXoyri-] 

10    Trapa    ^aAao-crav    B    reU]    Kara    SahxiJiTav    h    :     >A  ]  If    B^-lhA©  [   11/12 
e^aTTCO-TciAev  omn  |  14/15  T;vAoy77(Tev]  Kut   euAoyr/o-ev  omn  i  15/16  Aeywv  A®] 


denses     14  The  omission  of  kui  in  KruIL  makes  better  Greek  \  The  temporal 
augment  with  tv-  onlj^  in  K,  see  Helbing,  75  '  15  ff.  In  l?s  vs.  8  apparently 

read:  nn'i  rc2i  ii<-  2^  Hzp'^i  Dn-bn^  b>5  ^zz  D-z^  D-c::-^ 
Q-^rs  D3?  Q'r;"n\^  bbi^  ipb-  nn^r;  nv:bi"i  (p"it:i).    On  n':;r:i 

which  I  have  placed  in  parentheses  see  on  11.  22/23.     The  principal  deviation 
from  ?^™  consists  in  the  reading  12-  (minus  the  vowel  letter)  which  taken 
as  a  perfect  (121*)  entrained  the  pointing  ipb"  or  ipb~  and  the  change  of 
the  suffixes  from  the  second  to  third  person  as  well  as  the  excision  of  ^"IS" 
1"2Xb  □"■'bs  •    A  less  important  difference  was  the  dropping  of  the  prepo- 
sition in  front  of  nip  -  and  the  following  nouns  which  caused  the  translator 
to  place  the  caesura  at   nri'bnX  •     Such  is  the  text  and  exegesis  under- 
lying Bh.    A  crude  approachment  to  li?""  constitutes  the  introduction  at  the 
head  in  <£  of  Kai  u-n-e.  Trpos  avrovs,  the  rest  remaining  as  it  is  in  Bh.     Not  less 
mechanical  was  Origen's  procedure  who  left  the  text  of  the  kolvt]  essentially 
intact  except  that  he  inserted  after  the  first  xai  the  words  et7r£  Trpo?  avTov<; 
Aeywv  (Lagarde  follows  Maes  in  placing  Trpos  avrov;  alone  sub  ast;  his  Syriac 
MS  reads:  j^]  i-=    ^.c^Zsli    ^j^lo  •)»(•;  neither  is  correct;  for  if  we  follow 
the  lead  of  A©  which  retain  Aeywv  and  omit  km  we  should  have  to  place  Kat 
ciTTc  Trpos  avTovs  sub  ast;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  B  is  our  guide  then  cittc  Trpos 
avTov;  Aeywv  should  be  put  sub  ast;  the  decision  rests  with  the  determination 
of  the  exact  relation  of  A©  to  Origen  into  which  question  I  am  not  in  a 
position  to  go  beneath  the  surface  at  the  present  writing) ;  if  he  at  all  con- 
nected any  sense  with  the  text  thus  estabhshed  (and  certainly  A©  must  have 
wrested  some  sort  of  meaning  from  the  text  as  read  by  them),  he  took  as 
the  subject  of  the  two  verbs  not  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh,  but  Reuben 
and  Gad  (the 'presumable  subject  of  uropevOrjaav  in  vs.  6).    Accordingly,  in 


44  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    167a  aiv  ttoWoi^;  ava-  XXII 

\v€Tai  et?  TOf? 

OLKOV<;   VfJiCOV 

20        Kai  ev  KTrjveal 

7ro\Xoi<?  a-(f)o8pa- 
Kai  apjvpiov  Kai 
'■^pvcriov   KaL  ai- 
Srjpov  Kat,  -^^aXKO' 


Kr]  -^prjfxxKTL  s:  ;(ptj(xao-t  O*  j  17  TToAAots  Krs]  ttoXAis  o:  ttoAAt;?  o^  18  -Xverai 
Ko]  -Av€Te  rs  I  17/18  amAi-eTe  Kr]  ite  il  i  20  ev  KTTjvecrtv  K]  ex'  KT-qveai  r: 
KTTjvr?  iL  I  21  TToXAots  Kr]  TToXXa  IL     22  Kai  Kr]>1L  I  24  Kat  xaA-Kov  KR]>iL 

e.vXoyq-  :  pmi  kui  ItF  |  20  KT-qvcal  ]  KT-qixxj.cn  U  |  22- 


Kai  Bh  :  prm  Kat  uirt  -n-po^  avrov^  CES  |  17/18  avaXverai]  aivqXOocTav  BAA  : 
aTvqXBov  0  :  tiarjXdov  h:  \itauu  ©  :  i^]]  S  !  19  v[X(dv  S]  avrwv  B  rell  20/21 
ev  KTrfveal  TToAAot?  <£]  Kat  kxt^vt?  TroAAa  B  rell  '  21  a4>o8pa\>h.  22/23  Kai 
(TiS-qpov  Kat  ;(aAKo]>-^G£AS  :  Kat  aiBrjpov  Bh  :    >A0  :  SUb  •)»(•  S 


dismissing  Manasseh,  Joshua  informs  them  that  Reuben  and  Gad  were  gone 
aheady  and  that  it  therefore  was  now  their  part  to  go  likewise.  Tliis  bit  of 
harmonistic  exegesis  is  on  a  line  with  that  of  Rashi  who  naturally  was  bound 
by  the  received  text  to  introduce  a  minor  modification.  The  K  texts  which 
\\dth  A0  retain  Aeywv  go  a  step  further  in  assimilating  the  text  to  1^",  though 
they  diverge  in  details:  Kruf  introduce  the  imperative  and  the  second 
person  of  the  pronoun  in  the  first  half  of  the  verse  {arnXvere  characteristic  of 
this  recension;  it  certainly  did  not  come  from  a'  who  wrote  ^zlbtx  according 
to  5"=),  while  they  leave  the  remainder  substantially  the  same  as  in  B  (except 
that  the  preposition  is  restored  in  front  of  r'.p'Z  ;  ufi  prefix  Kat  in  front  of 
SietAovTo  so  as  exphcitly  to  dissociate  the  second  half  from  the  first;  z  left 
out  Kat  as  it  so  often  does) ;  3L,  on  the  other  hand,  goes  on  with  the  impera- 
tive and  the  second  person  of  the  pronoun  in  the  second  half  of  the  verse  as 
well,  but  introduces  in  addition  the  Kotvr?  form  at  the  end  in  the  reading  of 
ufi  II  17/18  ite  3L  does  not  appear  to  reproduce  avaAvere  but  probably  aireX- 
Oere  \\  19  ^~-^.?  S  is  probably  an  error  for  ^=-n.'.i^7  ';  20  KTr^paai  u  seems  to 
have  preserved  the  original  Greek,  though  etjonologically  the  Hebrew  might 
be  rendered  KT-qv-q  S  22/23  places  Kat  ^^oXkov  Kai  aih-qpov  sub  ast;  this 
accords  well  enough  with  A0  which  omit  the  entire  phrase;  but  Bh  have  at 
least  Kai  (Tih-qpov  which  reading  is  shared  by  iL;  the  other  K  texts  go  with 
Origen  'i  22  ff.  z  condenses 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  45 

K    1676  Kai  ifia\^rtaijLov\  XXII 

TTOXVV  8\^L€CX0V-  1 

TO*   Traaalv  j-qv  1 
Trpovo/jilrjv  t(ov] 
5       e')(6p(ov  [auTfoyl 

(^(ov  avlrcov :] 
^Kai  e'J^op^ev0^]ad^  9 

OL  ViOL  polv^TjvA 
10       KaL  01  viol  I  7aS'l 
/cat  TO  7;/irt(TU  </)y-l 
X?j9  I'tcoj'  [|Jiava(T-^ 
cny   airo  rlwv  ui-l 
(t)v  lrf)C  evlaiiXd)^ 


1676  2  TToXvv  Ko]  TToAAw  rs:  +  o-cf>o8pa  s  |  3/4  8  leiAovJro  Kr]  StrjXovro 
(per  compendium)  o:  BiuXavro  s:  dividetis  31  |  3/4  Trao-a'v  t>jv]  7rpovo/A[T/i'J  K] 

TVV  TTpovofirjv  Traaav  1".  T-qv  Trpovofju-qv  (tt/oovo/xiv  O*)  iraaav  o:  T-qv  Trpovofxrjv  s:  de 
praeda  3L  |  5  [aurtov]  Kr]  v/xtav  IL  |  7  av[Twv]  Kr]  vfx.wv  3L  :  +  Kat  StetAovro  tt/v 
TTpovo/x-qv  fJiCTa  Tcov  a8eA(^(DV  auTwv  3t  |  8  ^  r  |  9,  10  oi]>0  j  11  rw  r  |  12  vlmv 
Kl-sl/j>0  I  12/13  [puava(r\a-q  Kr]  pxivvaar)  H  |  14  ev  K]  €k  rIL  |  [crr^Atu]  Kr] 

1676  2  Ktti  —  TToXvv  (o-(f>o8pa)  ]>z  I  2  ttoAw]  +  a(f)oBpa  \  2/3 
SieiAovro]  prm  Kat  ufi  |  3/4  Traaav  r-qv  Trpovofxrjv]^^  \  6/7]  >iz  |  8  If  ul  |  9 
pov^LV  It  :  pov^(e)t/A  uf  j  9-13  01 — /xavaaar)]  ovtol  z  j  14  ev  i]  ck  rell  |  16  Try] 

1676  2  TToXvv]  +  acf>o8pa  <tA®AS>  I  2/3  SteiAovro  h]  StetAavTo  B  rell  1  3 
7ra(rav]>omn  5  avTwv  €A0A  :  sub  -^^  ^ :  >  Bh  I  8  ^  liA©  \  kul]  prm  kui 
airea-Tpeijjav  <&A  et   Sub  •>(•  S  |  11   rjfxiaeL   h  \  12   i;twv   B]>h<i!tA©AS   |  14    ev 


1676  2  acf)o8pa  omitted  by  BhKrolL  was  apparently  missing  in  <S  || 
2/3  SuiXavTo  is  the  vulgar  form;  Kro  as  well  as  h  have  the  classical  aorist  || 
3  iraaav  which  is  wanting  in  |l?™  only  in  KrouF  |i  5  auTwv  was  omitted  by  <S, 
the  article  as  so  often  doing  service  for  the  pronoun  ||  6/7  iz  condense  || 
7  Origen  alone  added  Kat  aTreaTpexj/av  sub  ast;  from  liim  it  penetrated  into  C 
li  9-13  z  condenses  \\  9,  10  o  omits  the  article  as  elsewhere  often  ||  12  uiwv 
B  and  the  K  texts  except  o  which  merely  condenses,  not  in  S?™  ,  14  ev  6 
probably  read  nbc^,  a  shortened  relative  clause  '  arjXwfx  hs1L  =  o-7?Awv 
comp.  jLtayeSStov  for  pAiytBSw  (comp.  ^zb^'^uj  and  Lagarde,   Obersicht,  187)  |! 


46  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1676  15       e«  77^9  -^^alvaav^  XXII 

aireXdeiv  [et?  T77] 
7aXaa8'  e[t9  7^yj 
Karacf^e  [  o-e&)9  J 
avrcov    ^rjv  Ka-^ 

20  T€KXrjpO  [  VOfJLT]-  ] 

Cray  ei/  at>[T?;  St-] 
a  7rpo<TTa[7/LtaTO<?l 
^i)  €1/  %ei[/3i  /iwfcrr/*] 
168a  ['"/cat  r;X^]oi^  €i<;  ya-  10 

[XiXa]^^  Tou  lopBa- 
Ivov  7]  ]  ecTTLV  ev 
[77;  '^a]vaav  Kai 
5        [&)«o8o]/ir;o-ai/  Oi  u- 


(TtAw  o:  (TtAwyu,  s:  o-t^Aw/a  1L  j  17  yaAoaS  Kro]  prm  tov  sIL  ;  19/21  [/<aJTe- 
kXt/po^vo/xtjV'**'  K]  f.K\-qpovofx.T}(Tav  rs:  cKXT^povo/xttrav  o  |  23  x^V  Kr]  manus  IL 
I  fiuyar)  TO 

168a  1/2  ya^XtAa]^  K]  xa-^tAa^  r:  yaXiXaS  os:  ^ah7ea  it  |  4  ^  r  |  5-9 
01 — juuxvao-o-77]>S  I  6,  7  pov/3r)v,  yaS  Kro]-^3L  |  6  oi]>o  j  7  tw  r  j  8  <f>vXr)'5  K?t] 

yr;v  i  19-23  T^v  —  /AtuDO-?;]  >  z      19/20  (.Kky^povofJiiqiTav 

168a     1    1[   1    i   rjX.Ooaav   ,   4-23   r;  —  io/3Savou]>Z    |   6,  7    povfitjv,   yaS]--^   | 

BhOJAS]  €K  A©  ;  ariXwfx  h  |  15  ck  yr}<i  dtA®]  ev  yr?  BhAS  ;  16  t>}  B]  yrjv 
h(£"^AAS  :  +y^v  0  ;  17  yaXoaS]  prm  tov  0  |  17/18  yr/v  Karacrxecrews]  tt/v 
KaTa(r^e(TLV  ^  \  19/20  f.KXr]povoixiqaav  omn      21  ev  avTifj\  avrrjv  B  rell  :!>A 

168a  1  •;  A0  riXdov  B  rell]  r)\6oaav  AA  1/2  yaXtXa^j  yaXiXoid  A0A 
(S  ZN.N^)    :    yaXyaXa    B   :    yaXaaS   he    j    4    •[   h    A    |    6,  7    povyS^^v,    ya8 

15  <@  manifestly  wrote  ev  yr);  ck  yrjs  is  an  inner-Greek  variant  (the  stages 
are  ey  yrj,  ck  y?^,  ck  yr;?)  ij  16  yr;v  was  written  by  <5  and  then  replaced  by 
TTjv;  or  <@  wrote  ttjv  yr;v,  yr;v  then  dropped  out  after  rr/v  ||  19-23  z  condenses  || 
19/20  The  compound  only  in  K  !|  21  ev  avrrj  the  K  recension  in  accordance 
with  IS"";  A  omits  the  'a' id  as  superfluous  in  Greek 

168a  1  The  vulgar  form  in  ufAA  !j  1/2  nib"'br>  1^™  is  reproduced 
exactly  in  A0A  (but  ^N*\^  S);  the  singular  of  the  K  texts  stamps  it 
visibly  as  the  name  of  a  locaUty;  in  Bh<£lL  the  name  is  corrupted  (assimi- 
lated to  other  names:  Gilgal,  Gilead,  GaUlee;  the  last  not  a  bad  guess). 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  47 

K  168a  [lot  povj^rjv  Kai  oi  XXII 

\vLOL  7  |aS'  Kat  ro 
[r)fiL(T}v  (f)vX'r]<;  fia- 
Ivacrcr^r]'   e«ei  /3&)- 

10  \/jiOV  eJTTt   TOV   LOp- 

[  Savory   ^(Ofiov 
[  jie'ya^v  rco  iSeiv 
[^^KaL  r]^KOvaav  ol  v- 

I  LOl   IrjX'  ]    \€JOVTCO- 

15        [v   L8ov'^a)Ko8ofii]ad 

lot  vto^c  pov^-qv  Kat 

I  ot  vco^L  7a8'  KUL  ro 

[rjfjiicr^v  (f)v\r]'i  fxa- 

[i^acrcrjT;  ^(Ofiou  e- 
20        \(f)  opc^cov  tt;?  %a- 


11 


+  vLwvro  I  8/9  fxavvaarj  1L  |  11  /Swfjiov  Kslt]>0  |  12  TwtSeivKr]  tov  iSetv  s: 
in  conspedu  domini  31  :  >o  |  13  oi]>o  \  14/15  Xeyovrwv  Ksr^]  Xeywvrwv  r*  | 
14-1686,  1  AeyovTwv— I^A]>0  |  16,  17  pov^-qv,  yuS  Krs]^iL  !  17  rw  r  |  18 
<j>vXr)s]  +  rtcuv  S  !  18/19  frnvvacrrj  IL  |  19/20  e',<^ ]  Ks]  ctt  r  1  20  tt??  K]  yrj?  rs 


pOv/?tV  Iti:  pOv(3{e)llX  Uf   I    9-11   y8cO;U,OV   —    60p8aVOD]>    1    12  TO)]   TOV   I    13  H  1   I    15 

wKoSofXTjaafxev   U  |   16,    17  pov/^Tjv,    yaS]^   1  pov/Siv  Iti  :  pov/3{e)ifi  ui  |  20  rr/s] 


A0AS]  ^  11  Tw]  TOV  omn:  prm  em  B  (>B=''')  |  13  "^  A  | 

14/15  AeyovT(uvl>e  \  15  t8ov>Ti  <B   16,    17  pov;8r?v,   yaS   AQASj-Bh®  j  18 
rifJii<T€L  B*hA  I  19/20  t<j)  opiwv  Tijs]  CTTi  Tw  opLwv  yr/s  B*  :  e<^  optwv  y7;s  B''  ^"*"' 


None  of  the  recensions  followed  a'  in  treating  the  word  as  a  common  noun. 
Observe  the  shght  corruptions  in  r  (x  for  spirantic  y)  and  os  (8  for  spirantic 
0)  !i  4-23  The  omission  in  z  may  be  due  to  homoioteleuton;  but  probably  at 
the  same  time  it  serves  the  purpose  of  condensation  H  5-9  s  condenses  || 
6,  7  The  Hebrew  order  in  Kro  and  in  Origen's  recension  with  its  dependents; 
so  also  16/17  and  169a,  5-7  |1  9-11  The  omission  in  ufi  due  to  homoio- 
teleuton !j  12  Inner-Greek  variants  ![  o  condenses  Ij  3L  paraphrastic  ?  !i  14  ff. 
In  o  the  omission  which  is  due  to  homoioteleuton  serves  at  the  same  time 
the  purpose  of  condensation  |1  18  mwv  s  an  addition  !|  20  optwv  of  the  three 
recensions  (only  h  diverges)  goes  back  to  bin3  1^^  in  the  place  of  bl'^  l^"  il 


48  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    168a  [i/aai^]  ctti  tov  ya-  XXII 

[A.tX,a]^'  TOV  lop- 
^Savov  a^TTo  ^epov<; 
1686  Tcov  vicov  iriX- 

'"  Kat  avvi]6poia6r)-  12 

(Tav  01  VIOL  h]X''  ird- 
re?  et?  crrjXw   axr- 
5        re  ava/3rjvai  Kat 
€K7ro\€/xrjcraL 

avTOv^'   ^'^Kai  airecr-  13 

reiKav  ol  viol  h'X'' 
7r/9o<?  rov^  viov<i 
10        pov^rjv   Kat  TT/oo? 
rov<;  VL0v<i  'yah''  • 


3L  j  21/22  ya[XLXa]d  Kr  il]  yaAiAaS  s  j  23  [aJTro  fiepov^  K]  cttl  /xepou?  rs:    in 
parte  IL 

1686  2  "y  r  :  a-vv-qOpurdrf'  O  |  3/4  ot  mot  iryA  Travres  Kr]  Travres  ot  mot  tj^A 
11  :  TTuvre?  o  I  4  ets  Kl'o]  ev  S  j  4  o-r?Aw  Kr]  (TtAw  o  :  ar]X<x)fi  slL  [  4/5  ware 
Ks]  (oo-rat  o:   wre  r     5  ava^yjvai  Kro]  avafiuvai  S  !  8  ot  SUperscr  o  |  10/11  pov- 


yr)<:  |  23  airo]  evi 

1686     2  l[]>ul  I   ;  4  as]  ev  i  |  7  If  1  |  8-14  ot  — yaAaaS]  Trpos  auTous  iz 


eA©AS  :  €vyr)'h  \  21/22  tov  yaAiAa^]> A  :  yaAiAa^]  2> N . N  ^^  :  ygAtAtu^  A©  : 
yaAoaS  Bll(i£      23  airo  pcpovs]  £V  rw  Trepav  omn 

1686    1  rwv]>omn  |  2  ^BhA©  |  /cat]  prm  xat  rjKova-av  ot  Dtoi  t^A  €A  et  sub 
•)i(*  ^     3/4  ot  vtot  IrjX  Travres]  -^  omn  |  4  ets]  ev  h  [  arjXMfi  h  j  5  avafirjvat 

Kat]  ava(3r]vaL  AS  :  ava/Savras  A  :  ava/Savres  B  rell  |  6/7  eKTroXep-qaaL  avTOVi] 


Tr)<;  K  is  an  error  for  y^ys  Ij  21/22  See  above  on  11.  1/2  II  21-23  V:^^   z^^.N^ 

S  =  ev  Tw  yaAtAa^  evrt  COmp.  15.  18.  64.  128  !|  23  aTro  (or  em)  pepov^  all  the  K 

texts;  comp.  /Acpos  =  "'23'"  Exod.  32:15 

1686  1  Origen's  recension  alone  (thence  into  <K)  added  sub  ast  Kat 
r^Kouo-av  01  mot  t^A;  either  the  first  three  words  of  vs.  12  were  missing  in  l^^, 
or  were  omitted  by  the  translator,  the  clause  being  merely  resumptive  of 
the  identical  clause  at  the  head  of  vs.  11;  comp.  the  analogous  case  10:41 
(161a,  18/19)  l|  3/4  o  condenses  |)  None  of  the  recensions  express  my  \\ 
5/6  Note  the  paratactic  construction  in  the  K  recension;  the  infinitive  was 
written  also  by  Origen,  but  he  subordinated  the  second  infinitive  thereto 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  49 

K    1686  Kai  7rpo<;  to  ijfxiav  XXII 

(pvXij'i  fxavaaar}' 
et?  T7;i/  <yaXaaS'  to 
15       (f)LV€€<;-  viov  e\e- 
a^ap'  Tov  L€p€co<; 

^* Kai  BeKa  av8pa<;  14 

T(OV  ap'x_ovTcov 

TOiV   fl€T  aVTOV 

20       ap')(^(ov  eh  airo  oi- 
Kov  TTaTpias  airo 
iraawv  twv  (fyvXco 
IrX' •   ap^ovT€<i  oiKM 

fifjv — r60tis]>0  9-13  Tovi — nxLvaaarj]  avTovi  S  |  10/11  Trpos  tovs  movs]>^ 
I  13  ^I'Ar/s]  +  vtwv  V  I  fjxiwaarj  'i^  \  14  to  KIL]  -(-  re  R  !  15  (^tves  5L  |  17  8eKa] 
I  TO^  I  19  TiDV  ]>r  19/20  [j.£T  avTOv  ap^wv  eis]  ap^ovra  eva  fttT  auTwv  ?L  ]  21 
Trarptas]  prm  et  IL  |  20/21  airo  olkov  7raTpias]>S  23  IrjX]  prm  vlmv  ^  oiKwv] 
>0 

pov^Lv  It:  pou;8(e)t)U,  uf  I  13  (f>vXr]s  Itf]  +  vlmv  U  I  14  TTjv]  yr/v  |  tov]  +  re  |  16 
-a^apov  i:  +  vtoi;  aapojv      lepews  U*]  api^iepetos  U™ltF      19   Tiov]^   \  23   ir^X]  prm 

VLO)V  t 

^A  I  7  ^  A©  I  12  TifxiaeL  hA  I  to]  tovs  wous  B  |  14  tyjv]  yrjv  BhCAOS  :  tyjv 
yrjV  A  i  to  h]  +  tc  B  rell  i  16  -a^ap]  +  vtov  aapwv  B.  rell:  +  vlov  aapwv  h: 
sub  —  S  I  tepew?  h(£AS]  apxtepews  BA®  |  17  av8pas]>omn  19  twv  A]> 
B  rell  (post  apypvTwv  ■/■  in  0j  20  apy^wv]  prm  Kai  <£^''  A  ;  21  TraTpias]  +  avTwv 
<t  \  22  Twv  A0A  I  23  ap^ovTcsJ  prm  avSpes  ®AS  ]  otKw]  otKov  h 

(so  at  least  5  and  A;  contrast  ©A  which  follow  the  B  texts)  Ij  8-14  iz 
condense  9-13  s  condenses  Ij  10/11  3L  condenses  \  12,  13  "the  sons/'  "of 
the  sons/'  Bru,  not  in  |l?"  14  yr/v  or  r-qv  y-qv  was  apparently  written  by  <@  |1 
T€  is  a  Greek  embelhshment  -^vith  which  the  translator  maj'  be  credited  !| 
16  The  KOLVT]  adcUtion  which  may  go  back  to  "TIS  "p  1^^  and  which  Origen 
placed  sub  obelo  was  excised  by  the  K  recension  (and  re-introduced  in  uf)  Ij 
(5  apparently  wrote  ap^iepews  (B,  followed  by  A©,  also  u^ltr)  wliich  Origen 
and  the  K  recension  corrected  into  tepews  (so  also  h)  i|  17  avSpa?  peculiar  to 
the  K  recension  19  twv  should  be  deleted  '  20  There  does  not  seem  to  be 
any  good  reason  for  the  conjunction  20/21  Omission  through  homoiote- 
leuton  in  s  23  mwv,  as  so  frequently,  an  idle  addition  ,  avSpes  (<£AS)  goes 
back  to  Origen  =  D"'il':K  i^"" 


50  'The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    169a  irarpioiv  etal  XXII 

'X^tXiap'^^^oL  IrjX'  : 
'"Kat  Trapeyevov-  15 

TO   7rp0<i   TOV<i    V- 
5  LOV<i  pOv/SrjV     KUL 

7rp0<i   TOV^   VtOVi 

yaS^  •   Kat  7r/90?  to 

rjfMtav  (f)v\7]^  V- 

i(ov  fxavaaarj  • 
10       ei?  'yi]v  yaXaaS' 

Kac  e\aXr]crav 

irpo^  avTOv<;  Xe- 

yovTe^-   ^''Tahe  16 

Xeyei  rj  avvayw- 
15       777  kv  iraaa  •   tl<; 

T]  TrXrf/xixeXeLa 

avTT] '   -qv  eirXrifJi- 

fX€Xi]cr€TaL  evd- 

TL  Ou  h]X' •    airocTTpa- 

169a  1  [7raT/3twv]  ]  TrarptKwv  3L  !  et(rt  S  |  3  •[  r  |  4-12  Tors  —  7rpos]>0  | 
5/7  pov(3r]v,  yaSJ  ^-  3L  ,  4-10  7r/30S  —  yaAaa8|>S  [  8/9  vtwv]>lL  i  9  fxxivvaar] 
IL  j  10  yrjv^  Tr)v  3L  ]  13  •[  r  14  Xeyr]  O  ;  14/15  7]  trvvaywyrj  kv  iraaa  Kl'o]  Trao-a 
(TvvayiDyr]    kv    S?L    |    16    7rAr;/x/i,eAeta    Ks]     TrATj/A/xeAta    ro    j    18    -fJLeXrja-are    VO^ 

169a  3  ^  U  i  4-11  irpos — eAaAr/<rav]>iz  '  5/7  pov(3rjv,  yaS\^  !  6  >f  | 
pov/3iv  It]  povl3{€)ifJi  uf  I  14/15  r;  avvaywyr)  kv  nacra]^^  ;  14  77] >Z  [  18 
-fXiX-qdaTi  I   19  ^t']  prm  TOD  i  22/23  v/itv  eavTOts 

169a  1  TTttTpiw]  +  avTwv  e  (cf .  a  S™)  ;  3  •"  liA®  5,  7  povfi-qv.  yaS  A0]AS 
^Bh©  I  7/8  TO Tjjuicn;  li0A ] TODS  r?/xto-ets  BA  8/9  mwv]>omn  j  rjfiLcrtLh.* rjixiarv 
h^      10  yr7V  llQAS]  T77V  B<£A      13  "^  hA0  j  14/15  77  o-vmywyrj  iiv  ira<Ta 

]  v-^  omn  [[7;>h]]   :  +  ot  viot  ii7A  sub  -^SC-  5^  |  18  -fieXrjaaTe  omn  I  18/19  evavTi 


169a  1  avTojv  <£  may  be  an  innocent  addition  by  the  translator  as  so 
frequently  elsewhere;  but  a'  (according  to  S>^)  had  it,  and  it  is  found  in  1?""  'j 
4-12,  4-11,  4-10  Various  methods  of  condensation  (o,  s,  iz)  6  f  condenses  ii 
8/9  vL(Dv  K  texts  (except  il)  not  in  ?^"  10  r-qv  B<£A  an  error  for  yrjv  l| 
15  The  addition  01  viot  IrjX  S)  sub  ast  is  shared  by  none  else  and  is  probably 
an  error  (the  phrase  may  have  been  introduced  from  vs.  12)  ||  18  -/xcXrjaeTac 


I     >        >  > 

'. ; , ,  J  J    « ,  • .  '5  >  ■  >  .  J 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua         '  51 

K    169a  20       (f)r]vaL  ai]/x€p6  XXII 

airo  icv  oiKoSo- 
fxrjaai  auTOi<:  v- 
/Miv  /Scofiov   Kac 
1696  [jeveadai  vfia<i] 

aTToaTarla^  a7^o^ 

kv-    ^' fir]  fjL^iKpovj  17 

v/jLiv  TO  I  a^lap^r|-^ 
5        fxa  (f)oy\  (Op  OTtl 
ov  KeKa[6apLcrfJ.€-^ 
da  air,  av^TOV  eft)"?] 
T7/9  7;/xe[/3a?  raf-l 
T7;9-    «:a[t  €761/7^ -1 
10        drj  Tr\r]<y\^ii  ev  rr)^ 


(ixeXrja-aTat  o*)s  |  19  6v]  prm  tov  r:  prm  KV  3L  j  21  oikoSo-  K]  otKwSo-  o: 
prm  Kttt  O  I  21/22  oiKoSo/xrja-avTe';  iL  ;  22/23  aurois  u/xtv  K]  v/aiv  avroi?  r:  v/iiv 
€avrots  S  3t:  U|U,tv  O     23  Kat]>lS. 

1696  1/2  yeveo-^ai  u/iAas  aTroo-Taras  Kr]  aTrooraras  ii/i«s  yevecrOai  U  2  aTro] 
>0  ;  S  /xrj]r]  (sed  V.  Robert)  3L  4  afuipn-  O  !  5  ourt  o  |  6/7  KeKa'^^apto-/i,e]^a 
Krs]  KCKaOaptaO-qfieOa  o  ;  10  TrXtyr)  O*  {-irXrjyr)  O^)     13  |  -r;a-eo-^e]  Krs]    -qutcrdai  O  | 


1696  1-2  yeveo-^cu  v/xas  aTrooraTas]  aTrocrraras  v/xas  yevecr^at  i  5  <f)oyop  z  \ 
6/7  K€KKadapt(TiJL€6a  (6a  SUperscr)   z    j     15-17  Kai  —  a-rjfJiepov  (aTro  KtJ)   ]  >z   | 

A  A]  evavTtov  B  rell  |  ^i;]  prm  tov  Bh®  :  prm  kv  tov  A  J  21  aTro]  +  o-rrurdev 
<£A  et  sub  ■><<  S  |  21/22  otKoSo/xTyo-avres  omn  |  22/23  avrois  v/xiv]  ^  Bh: 
eavTois  A0AS  !  23  Kai  e]>B  rell 

1696  1-2  ytv€(j6ai  vfjia<;  aTroo-raras]  aTTOCTTaTas  vpuas  yevecrOai  B  rell: 
ttTTOo-raTas  yeveo-^at  v/xas  A  :  +  a-rj/Jiepov  <£A  et  Sub  •)jC-  S  3  kv]  prm  tov  B  j  ^ 
A  I  4  v;xiv  lieA0A]  r;/xtv  BS'  6/7  K^KaOapur fi^Oa  hA®]  eKadapL(T6rjp.cv  BA  I  10 
TrAT/yr;]  prm  t;  A  :  irkrifJifJ.eXui  h  1  12/13  aTroaTpacj>r)a-ea6e  A©S]  aTr€aTpacf>7]T£ 


K,  a  plain  error  for  -fxtk-qaaTai  \\  19  ILA  are  isolated  with  their  plus  || 
21  oTTLcrdev  was  added  by  Origen  so  as  to  express  "T!><  (the  asterisked  word 
also  in  <£;  naturally  not  in  A©)  \\  22/23  Origen  omitted  v/jllv  and  retained 
carrots  (so  also  A®)  because  the  Hebrew  had  only  one  word  '  23  kul  of  <£ 
and  the  K  texts  (except  11)  is  not  in  the  Hebrew 

1696    2  (rr}fji€pov  was  added  by  Origen,    =3'T'ri  (also  in  (£■)  [  10  The 
article  which  is  found  in  A  goes  back  to  Origen;  comp.  Z2\Z~  \\  12/13  The 


c         «  c    « 
*     c     c    • 

«  «     «  ».' 

<  re' 


52  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    1696  crffa7&)[777  «:£»]  XXII 

^^/cai  i'/Lie[i9  aTTO-l  18 

crrpa^  [  7;crecr^e  ] 

arjiiepov  [aTTO  «:{/] 
15       /cai  ecrT[at  eai'  a-1 

7rocrT7^T[e  o"7;/x€-] 

/9oy  /cat  aruptdj 

eiTi  7rav\Ta  IrfK.] 

Tj  opyr)  ealrai:] 
20  ''^Kai  i^uv  e[t  fltKpa^  19 

KaTa(T')(^  r  e<7€&)9  ] 


14  o-r7/i€jOOv]>5L  [kd]  Kr]  +  Ov  vfiwv  3L  I  15-19  kul  earai  avpiov  ctti  iravTa 
IrjX  rj  opy-q  o:  /cat  avpiov  €7rt  Traora  tj^A  eorat  rj  opy?;  S  |  15  e(TTatJ>3t  |  17  pov] 
+  ttTTO  kv  V%  I  19  eo-rat  -q  opyr)  rsH  |  20  ^  rs  |  etjr;  0  \  21  7;]>o  |  23  vfiwv  Krs] 
>o:  KV  3L 

16  -7ro(TTpa(f>7]Te  |  17    pov]+  ctto  ki  '  19  r)  opy-q       eo-Tat]v^   |  20  ^  U 

Bh€A  i  14  ttTTo]  OTTto-^ev  ©  |  15  •[  ©  eav]  +  v/,tets  ®A  et  sub  •>(•  S  ,  16/17 
ar}fJi€pov  (airo)  in  mg  et  sup  ras  A'*'  (o-r?jii£pov>A*"'^) :  aTro  Kw  omn  I  17  KatJ> 
ffih  [  19  7]  opy-q  eoratJ^B  :  eo-rat  opy?;  hA0A  :    \'\-^''>  |o-nJ  S     20  ^> 

BhA®  i  21  v/xtv  rj  yr;  li<£A©  \-q  yq  v/xtav  B  :  r)  y-q  A5  |  23  8ia(3qT€  ]  +  v/xtv  ^ 


translator  apparently  wrote  the  aorist  (whether  1^^  read  QDZ  w  ,  or  whether 
the  translator  not  understanding  that  the  clause  was  interrogative  took  the 
imperfect  in  the  sense  of  an  aorist,  it  is  difficult  to  say);  both  recensions 
(note,  however,  that  A  goes  with  B)  have  correctly  the  future  tense  i| 
14  o-ino-Otv  of  <t  may  be  grounded  after  all  in  Ethiopic  idiom;  but  see  above 
on  169a,  21  15-19  In  s  the  omission  may  be  due  to  homoioteleuton,  comp. 
z;  but  it  may  just  as  well  represent  condensation,  comp.  o  ii  15  v/jtets  =  Dn5^ 
was  added  by  Origen  (also  in  dt)  \\  17  a-n-o  kv  omitted  in  K  through  error  || 
Kat  of  the  apodosis  all  except  h(2t  |  20  Maes  suggests  that  <@  wrote  /xiapa 
which  was  then  corrupted  into  p-iKpa  21  vfiiv  of  the  K  texts  also  in  h<£A0; 
B  has  a  redundant  vfiwy  (which  perhaps  represents  an  original  vfxtv)  deleted 
by  Origen  ij  On  the  other  hand,  S'  adds  vfXLv  after  hvajiqTf.  1.  23  l|  23  ku  IL  a 
clear  error  which  led  to  the  omission  of  iiv  in  1.  3  of  the  next  column 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua 


53 


K    170a 

ei?  T'fjv  yrjv  tt;? 
Ka^a^a■)(^eaew<i 
kv'   0   V  eaTLV  i] 
aKr}vlT]  kv  Kac 

XXII 

5 

KaraAKXr^povo- 
firja-e^Tai  ev  rj- 
[/xiy     Kai  aiTO  kv 
fiT]  a   TToararai 
jLveAaOai'   Kai 

10 

vfiei  9  fiTj  airo- 
(TTrjrAai  Bia  to 
oiKoh  ofjLTjcrat  v- 
/jLa<i  ^](i)fMov  e^Q) 
Tov  OAvcnaaTi)- 

15 

piOvA    kv  TOV  6v 

170a    3  KV  Kr 

1>5L  1 

ttrrivl  erit  ?t     6  -iiriaaTe  rs :  -uto 

rarai  0  (at  corr  in  e) : 

+  avrrjv  5L  |  6/7  v/xiv  V  \  8  aTrooTare  r  [  9  yiveaSf.  1' :  ye.vr)cr6e  S  |  7—9  Kat  /x-q  awo 
KV  aTTOCTTaTat   yi-vqadi.   31  j   10   v/xets    KrILJ   a<^   rjfxwv  s:    >0  ;  11     (rxTjre    rs'] 

170a  3  eariv]  KaraaK-qvoi  f.KU  \  6  -[xr)(TaT€  \  6—12  rat  —  oiKoSofir)]^!  | 
7-9  Kai  —  yLveaOai]  Kai  fxr]  utto  kv  aTTOoraTai   yevrjdrjTe  \   10  Vjtteis]  avo  rj/Jiuiv  \ 

170a  1  eis]  ETTt  A  !  3  ou]  ottov  a  I  ecrnv]  KaraaKiqvoL  €ku  omn  [  4  (TKTfjvr}\ 
Kt/StoTos  A  j  6  -fjirjcreTe  B]  -/A?ycraT€  hA0A5  7-9  Kai  aTro  ku  /at;  aTroo'TaTai 
yivecT^e  cf.  S]  Kat  ju.17  aTroo-rarai  airo  6u  yevqtrOe  B  :  Kai  /at;  aTroo-rare  arro  ^u 
yevr)6r)T€   h:    Kai   /xrj   aTro   kv  aTTOcrrarai    yevrjOrjTe   A®  :  aTro   kv   //,?;    aTroo'TaTai 

yevr]dr)T€     A      }      10     V/XWi     B""^     superscrl-i(jjfhj     ^^o     ^^^^     A©AS      I      11      UTTOaTTjTe 


170a  3  eo-Tiv  Kr(1L)  against  all  the  other  texts  and  1^™  !!  4  The  reading 
of  A  is  singular  (or  sub-singular,  comp.  121)  li  6  K  goes  witli  B  in  reading 
the  future  !,  avrrjv  IL  superfluous  ',  7-9  Kr  come  nearest  to  S  comp.  A  in 
that  the  order  of  the  Hebrew  is  strictly  adhered  to;  with  A®  (comp.  uf)  the 
witnesses  mentioned  share  Ku  =  mri"'  J^";  the  essential  difference  between 
these  two  recensions  (K  and  Origen)  and  the  B  recension  consists  in  the 
name  of  the  Deity  {Ov  in  the  latter)  Ij  10  ^Dnj^  was  expressed  by  Origen 

T 

only  (it  passed  into  A®,  but  also  into  suf);  "M'  probably  read  □ri>5  (hence 
vfiei'i  of  the  other  texts),  which,  of  course,  is  an  inferior  reading;  o  merely 
condenses  li  11  The  addition  in  BhC  due  to  the  faulty  reading  discussed  in 


54  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages 

K    170d  »  [r]fJL(o]v'   '\vxei-  20  XXII 

[Sou  a^')(^ap  0  Tov 
^^apa^  TrXrjfi/jLe- 
[Xtai^]  eirXrjixpLe- 
20        rXT/treli/*   airo  tov 
^avadAeiJLaTO<; ' 
\^Kai,  eJTrt  rracrav 
^Ti]v  a^ivvaycoyrj 
170b  IrjX  eyevrjdi]  opyrj' 

KUL   0UT09  et?   jJLO- 

vo<i  Tjv   /lit;  jxovo'i 
auTO?  airedave- 
5       ev  T7]  avTOv  afxap- 

Tia:   '^  Kai  aireKpt-  21 

drjaav  ol  vlol  pov- 


-cTTeiTe  s*  I  12  oiKw8o^to-at  o  '  16  v/awv  s  |  •[  rs  [  16/17  ovK  lSov  R  1  i8ou]>lL  I 
19  -Xiav  Kro]  -Acta  s:  neglegens  IL 

1706  1  i7;A^>o  1  opyr]]  -{-  kv  o  \  2  ovros  Kr  31]  owTws  r:  avros  o  !  2/3  eis 
/i,ovos]  WWMS  3L  I  4  avTos  Kr]  ovtos  s3L  :   >o  |  5  tt/J  rt  o  |  eauTovs  j  6  ^  rs  i 

16/17  oi>K  tSov  I   18-20  TrXrffJLiJL ■   CTrXrjiXfi  .]^/^i 

170b  1  ti^A]>z  opyr;  It]  prm  t;  uf  I  2  £ts  ltfi]>uz  I  ;  4  avros  ltfi]>uz  | 
5  £v]>   I  avTou  ltF]>U  I  6  ^  1  I  pov^tvMi:  povy8(e) i/i,ufz  I  8  ot]>fz  i  otmot]>i  I 

A0AS]  +  ttTTo  KV  Bhe  ]  16  II  A  '  ovx  Ah*  (ovk  h»)  |  17  axap  Befh  rell] 
a^ftv  AS  I  18  ^apa]  'azor  C'  j  19  -A(eVv]  kU\a  omn  I  20  -A7;o-evJ  £  sup  ras 
A"'  I  23  Tr?v  A0A 

1706  1  eyevrfdrj]  evrjOr]  SUp  ras  B'' "'  |  2/3  /tiovos  Sub  —  S  j  3  r7V  A©]  sub 
emnisco  S  :  >BA  !  /xrj  />tovos]>B  3/4  yuovos  avros  cf  B]  /tovos  ovtos  A©: 
ouTos  /Aovos  A  et  sub  —  S  |  5  evj  >  AA  i  aurov  ©A]  eavrov  AB  I  2/6  kui  — 

the  last  note  \  17  axav  =  -^r:r  H!™  only  AS  jj  19  The  MSS  waver  between  the 
dat.  and  accus.  to  express  the  inner  accus.  in  Hebrew 

1706  2-6  It  is  clear  that  the  text  of  B  is  faulty;  the  words  riv  [ixj  [xovo^ 
dropped  out  through  homoioteleuton;  thus  barring  minor  points  all  three 
recensions  agreed.  Perhaps  xb  ?^™  goes  back  to  "inS  sb  by  the  side  of 
which  "inxn  1^^  was  a  justifiable  variant  \  10  vtwv  not  in  'W  \\  11/12  i  con- 

T    ■      i- 

denses  ||  13  Afyoj/res  all,  not  in  p?'",  hence  sub  obelo  Origen  [[  14-16  Origen's 
text  which  is  identical  with  that  of  A©  (comp.  also  s)  was,  as  the  obelus 
shows,  substantially  the  same  as  the  current  text;  the  differences  between  it 
and  B  are  slight  (B  transposes  kk  ta-rip  and  omits  the  last  k?.-  with  the  B 
text  goes  also  IL,  minor  differences  notwithstanding);   the  introduction  of 


The  K  Text  of  Joshua  55 

K    1706  ^rjv  Kai  ol  vloi  708'  XXII 

KUL   TO   rjfXLaV  (f)U- 

10        X?;?  vKov  fxavaa- 
(Tiy    Kai  eXaXrjad 

IrjX'  Xeyoure^;- 

"^0  ^9  avTO^  ear IV  22 

15       k^  0  6^-   KUL  0  6^  av- 

TO<i  oiSe^'   Kai  IrjX' 

avTO^  Siayvwae- 

Tai-   €L  ev  atrocna- 

aeia  TreTrXij/jL/xe- 
20       XrjKafiev  evav- 

Ti  icv   (XTj  pva-qraL 

rjfia<;  ev  ravrrj : 
'■'Kai  et  oiKoBo/xrjaa-  23 

8  oi]>o     gat  iL      10  ncov  Ks]>rolL  |  frnwaarf  3t  |  13  Aeywvrcs  O  \  14-16  O  6^' 
6<i  K<i  ecrrtv    /cat  o  6<i-  Ok   k^   oiSev  avros  s:   o  ^s    ^S  ecrrti'  Kat  o   ks   kul  o  6<;  arro? 
otSev  IL      14  eo-T6  ro      15  o  ^s  2°]>0  ,   16ot8ero      16-18 /cat — Stayi'wcreTat^>il 
19  -cna  R     21  pva-qrac  K]  pvaerai  o:  pvaero  s:  liberet  IL     22  Taurrj  KH-]  prm 
tt;  yjfxepa  R  j  20  *^  rs  !  23  (DKoSofXtjcra-  R 

9  (^vAtjs]  prm  rr;?  i  I  11/12  eXaXrjcrav  rots  ;(tXtap;)(ots]  clttov  arrots  i  12 
;^iAtap;(ats  U  ;  20/21  evavri]  evavrtov  z:  aTrevavri  rell  I  21  kv]  prm  rov  t  |  21 
pvatTai     22  raiJTv;]  prm  tt;  rjfiepa 

auTov]>h  6  ■^  hA®  9  rjiMia-ei  hA  10mwv]>omn  13  Aeyovrcs  sub  —  S)  14- 
16  o  ^S  o  ^s  /<?  ecrrtv  Kat  o  6%  o  6<i  ks  ai'Tos  otSev  []^o  2°]!>  A  |  eoTiv  /cat]  Sub  —  .S  | 
o  4°]  ^Aj]  A0A^  :  tti'Tos  o  6'?  ^s  6'?  ai'Tos  ecmv'  kui  o  ks  ks  avTos  otoev  h  :  o 
KS  ai'TOs  £(rrt  ^s  Kai  ks  Kat  ^s  d^wv  ai'xo?  o  k?  otSev  ®:  o  6^  6<;  eaTLV  k?  Kat  o  ^^ 
^s  ai'TOs  otSev  B  17  Siayvtocrerat]  yvwcrcrat  omn  18/19  aTrooracrti  A0  19/20 
TreT!-Xr]fXfi.€Xi]KaiJ.€v  0]  (.Trki^p.p.f.X-qcraiJif.v  BhAA  21  kv]  prm  roi;  Bh  pvcrr/rat  Aj 
pvaaiTO  BA0  :  pvcraTw  h  ( e  COrr )      22  rauTT;  Bh]  prm  T-q  r]fji.epa  A0AS      23  ^  > 

ai'To?  in  the  first  clause  distinguishes  the  text  of  KrouF  from  the  others. 
All  the  texts  err  exegeticaljy  in  that  the}'  look  in  the  first  clause  for  a  con- 
fession of  faith.  Properl}'  rendered,  the  Greek  should  run  as  follows:  o  6s 
o  6k  ki  o  0^  o  Bi  Ks  uvros  oi8er.  Certainh'  10.^  and  ?^™  were  identical  || 
16-18  The  omission  in  il  probablj'  occurred  in  a  Latin  MS  21  ll?^  read 
l!"""ri"  which  is  certainly  the  better  reading  22  K  goes  with  Bhli;  Tavr-q 
sc.  TT]  ■qp.f.pa;  it  goes  without  saying  that  Origen  supplied  the  words  (hence 
also  in  A0  and  uf),  but  they  are  also  found  in  r 


I 


4a 


HOME  USE 

CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

MAIN  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  tlie  last  date  stamped  below, 
l-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 
6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  Circulation  Desk. 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior 

to  due  date. 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL  7  DAYS 

AFTER  DATE  CHECKED  OUT. 


MAR  1.4  1975  X 


^turmibis 


,yr     ^  ^(^-'Q 


2i.MJiL 


NWii5l98S 


R£C  Cfff  Mi  1  5  '83 


7, 


LD21- 


LD21 — A-40m-12,'74 
(S2700I.) 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


f 


lU     ^0/10m 


^52J95 


t 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


r.i.: 


p:i  ,^ 


